Rodney & North Shore
April 26th, 2011 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarI have tended not to comment on national party candidate selections, even when I have strong preferences. It’s a decision for local members, and it is essentially a private decision.
But sometimes a selection may attract public headlines, as Rodney has done, or have a national impact – as oppossed to a local impact.
Whale Oil has blogged at length on Rodney. His exposure of what was happening helped the Board nullify the initial selection process, and re-open nominations.
First there is the issue of the electorate chair, as reported by Tv3:
The National Party chairman of Rodney electorate was a leader of a pro-white homeland South Africa party, it was revealed today.
The Rodney electorate has already been in the news over reports of infighting and allegations the selection committee was stacked, and the process has been restarted.
Today, TV3 political show the Nation reported that Rodney electorate chairman Cehill Piernar had been a leader of the Conservative Party in South Africa’s Orange Free State, and he fought to retain a white homeland.
The Nation showed documents where Mr Piernar said that if the party could not get the-then Apartheid Government to agree to the whites-only state, “the only option open to us will be to use violence”.
National Party President Peter Goodfellow said Mr Piernar was now a New Zealander.
“He’s in New Zealand now, we’re now a melting pot and people come to New Zealand and establish lives for themselves and he’s been elected by members in Rodney and became chairman some years ago,” he said.
Being electorate chair is a thankless task. Lots of work, no pay, and relatively minor influence. Mr Piernar has probably served in the background well for many years.
However his past is now in the public domain, and a past that advocated violence for a whites-only state is not a good one – even if he has since changed his views.
I’m a big believer that the party is bigger than any individual. Mr Piernar’s past has the potential to damage National. If I was in his shoes, I would put the party first and step down as chair.
Mr Piernar faced accusations of stacking branch membership within the electorate so a fundamentalist Christian accountant, Brent Robinson, could win the nomination for the safe National seat.
Mr Robinson’s candidacy is supported by members of the fundamentalist Life Church.
I don’t know Brent Robinson. All I know is that 150 members of a fundamentalist church signed up to try and help make him the candidate. To me that reeks of hostile takeover.
I’m all for aspiring candidates signing people up to National – but they should do that by door knocking and identifying National party supporters.
If a member of a rotary club sought nomination for National, there is no way I would expect 150 members of that rotary club join the party to vote for him. The fact that 150 church members have joined up suggests to me that it is because they wish to see National adopt their religious views.
I have absolutely no problem with MPs who have strong and deep religious convictions. In fact I consider several of them my friends. My problem is when they seek to legislate their religious beliefs on New Zealand.
I hope delegates in Rodney consider that their choice can and may have ramifications for the wider party. National will not continue to attract the broad based support it does today if it looks like it is going down a path of religious fundamentalism.
And it is on that topic we turn to North Shore, when Ewen McQueen is one of the candidates. Again I have not met Ewen, but he is a former leader of the Christian Heritage Party. I’ve spent the last 15 years trying to keep Christian Heritage out of Parliament, and to be blunt don’t want them to enter Parliament as a National Party MP.
Having the former leader of Christian Heritage in a National Caucus would send tens of thousands of younger urban voters fleeing to Labour. Hell, even I’d consider giving Phil Goff a go if that is the case.
When Christian Heritage wound up in 2006, McQueen said:
Mr McQueen said parliament was lacking a political party that would make a strong and clear stand for the importance of family life, the primacy of marriage and the sanctity of human life …
Mr McQueen said that those who advocated working as individuals to espouse these values within other parties ignored the fact that our parliamentary system was essentially based on political parties. This was even more the case since the introduction of MMP
Mr McQueen should follow his own advice and re-establish a niche party based on his desire to outllaw abortion, civil unions and bring back the death penalty (all CHP policies).
The delegates in Rodney and North Shore have the ability to damage the party significantly with their decisions. I hope they consider their options carefully and elect people who will help lift the party vote for National, not scare voters off National.
Related posts:
- The Rodney selection
- Six seek Epsom
- Time for Christian Heritage to wind itself up
- The bigotry of Christian Heritage
April 26th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Yes David, you’re absolutely right. Let them leave their politics outside the church door and leave their dogma outside the House.
I’m a committed Christian but the last thing I want to see is a “Christian Party” in parliament. We have plenty of MPs and any number of past PMs who are committed Christians. People like Jenny Shipley, Jack Marshall, Chris Auchinvole, Winnie Laban to name just a few. These people do an excellent job of bringing to bear their moral values without wearing their religious beliefs on their sleeves.
The other side of the scale is the number of mainline churches which today are simply providing cloaks of respectability for mobs of rabid socialists. Only last week The Moderator of The Uniting Church of NSW (an unhealthy amalgam of Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational) called for the church to support urgent action on climate change.
You’d think after 2,000 years these idiots might have learned to stick to saving souls.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
He should hook up with John Hatfield, their languge is evidently from the same speech writter.
Just the colour is different.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Gees, David and you are worried about ACT.
Vote:Of course you only have to brand them as Capil supporters to get the reaction you need.
April 26th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
I’m with you 100% on that Adolf. I would far rather see Christians take their places in the mainstream parties where their faith becomes part of the fabric of the party along with everyone else’s worldviews including those of the gaggles of gays and self-serving unionists. Although I regard myself as Christian to the core, I would NOT vote for a wholly Christian party.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
We do have a religious party in Parliament, they are called the greens and the National party has legislated their morality upon us, in the form of the ETS.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
National has been burned several times by choosing rabid Christian fundies (I can live with a leavening of the non-rabid ones). I doubt they will choose to play with such fire again. And DPF is right: choosing such persons as candidates sends a message to tolerant liberal Kiwis (like myself) that is not good.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
I met- only briefly- Cehill Pienaar back in South Africa. It is possible that he has changed his views, but as was shown on WhaleOil, he has given talks here in NZ which seemed to have been somewhat laudatory of the apartheid system. Unfortunately the link where the talk was recorded is now coming up as an ‘attack site’ on Google, so I won’t link it. I think that he should resign as local chair because of his role in trying to stack the electorate, let alone the damage that his past will bring us.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Rabid Christian fundies, yeah i remember their violent retoric when they marched on parliament demanding s[ecial rights for their race… or am I thinking of some other group?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Not so sure that ones faith really matters in a Political party.
Vote:Having “christians” in The Labour didn’t stop the social agenda dominating their time in office, nor did it help us fiscally either.
I suspect they all met in the toilet rather than speak out in caucus. Will it be any different in National?
April 26th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Yes, another group Murray but not so different that it would be immediately noticeable. One group want everyone else to kowtow to their beliefs… the other? One promises hell fire & brimstone if their demands are not ceded to…..the other? One carries the Bible…the other the Treaty.
Both groups are utterly determined that theirs is the only way & that the rest of us unbelievers are second class citizens.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
DPF said: “Mr McQueen should follow his own advice and re-establish a niche party based on his desire to outllaw abortion, civil unions and bring back the death penalty (all CHP policies).”
But many would say that abortion is the death penalty, is it not (for the completely innocent)? It is not so B&W for you Davd, is it?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Come on David I’m sure a party known as the Christian Heritage National party would do real well with the ordinary voters :-
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Ok, so its a few hours after Easter Monday, and its bash all Christians Day already because of Life Church and inmate Capill?
Too much palm oil in the Easter Eggs methinks.
Aren’t they allowed to have beliefs and be involved in politics? That Dr Rt Hon Locky Smith even PRAYS in parliament on a daily basis. SHOCK, HORROR!. And who allowed the Dalai Lama in to our House of Rep.s for a visit with waves of sycophantic bowing?
[DPF: As I said I welcome MPs of faith in National. I do not welcome people who wish to legislate their faith and impose it on others]
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Again I think exactly the opposite view DPF and I think you are absolutely wrong.
Once again — New Zealand civilisation and Western civilisation is fundamentally Christian. What year is it? It is 2011 A.D. — in the year of our Lord.
I appreciate we have had godless liberals and socialist radicals dismantling our civilisation for the last 30 or 40 years. But I think Christians are entitled as much as anybody else to stand for Parliament.
And I rebuke you for your unbelievable arrogance to say that they should not impose their Christian views on everybody else. All legislation has a view. In the case of the previous government it was a radical socialist/feminist/gay-rights agenda that has a socialist and agnostic religious viewpoint underpinning it.
Liberalism as practised today has a secular worldview that says God is not important. That is a religious position. So there is no way that any legislation is value free. And once again Christian’s are free to take their views to the electorate the same as anybody else. To say that people who take God seriously are not eligible for Parliament is not actually a liberal viewpoint.
And finally who died and made you King so that you can prescribe the acceptable religious views in Parliament?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Scott @ 1.13pm
You are claiming a mandate to speak for many when in fact you represent the few. I am not liberal & certainly not socialist but I do not worship your God nor that of anyone else. Therefore I am unable to take a religious position on anything.
Where we seriously part company is that I don’t care about your faith & values but I respect your right to hold them. The god botherers however seem unable to grant me the same courtesy & insist on forcing their values upon me.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
nasska at 1:42: Amen!
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Which values exactly do you think would be “forced upon you?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Hell as an old Labour type I wish the Nats would pick raving, talking in tongues ,snake handling types.
Vote:The ordinary punter who is not a raving xtian would say fuck that my votes going to Labour.
They would not vote for Brash if he ends up as the chief of ACT because he is the oldest for one good reason, punters hate hypocrites who rant on about so called family values.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
iMP you may believe in old fucking fairy tales but a hell of a lot of us in both major parties do not.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
The stacking complaint seems well founded but I can’t understand your objections, nor those of some others, of the other selections and officials.
A gentleman was(is?) pro-Apartheid, the current coalition Government of which National is the leader could be accused (accurately in my opinion) of the same thing, the difference being colour.
Another gentleman is a rabid fundamentalist godbotherer.
Do these beliefs infect others?
Does one voice (or two) mean the whole party suddenly become unable to think for themselves?
For mine, if the electorate organisation considers these people are the most likely to deliver the electorate for National – and I’m certain these views will be aired during the election campaign – there should be no real problem.
Should they make the list to become unelected MPs, then I see a problem.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
David, thanks for bring this to everyone’s attention. I’ve got a Catholic background but do not attend church. I share your view that people of all faiths ought to as involved in politics as anyone else but that a separation of church and state is vital to the health of a liberal western democracy. I also am extremely wary of race politics – separatists of any and all ilk.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
nasska-man it is hard to get people to think clearly on this blog!
Let me try this again.
You — if you say you have no religion — that is a religious position. I have no religion, I don’t believe in God — that is a religious view. Therefore any legislation you support will have that religious worldview behind it.
Why is your view legitimate in Parliament — there is no God and there is no religion worth thinking about? Why is the view that there is a God not legitimate in Parliament?
You say you have no religion. In other words you don’t believe in God. I do have a religion and I do believe in God. Why is your view legitimate and mine not?
If you want laws that reflect your view and I want laws shaped towards my view that’s fine — surely? That is democracy.
What irritates me intensely is the view that only the godless should make the laws in Parliament. Somehow Christian views are illegitimate. I say that is wrong. I say that is not Liberal. I say that Christians have just as much right to have a say as you do.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
andrei @ 1.50pm
Capital punishment
Corporal punishment
Curtailment of licensing hours
Criminalisation of homosexuality
Prayer in State Schools
Banning of abortion
Regulation or banning of contraception
Creationalism
Restrictions on divorce
That should do for starters.
Back after 6pm
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I’m happy the way things are.
But then, I’m a Christian Athiest.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Capital punishment
no, the Church tends to be against this
Corporal punishment
unlikely
Curtailment of licensing hours
they are regulated today, all governments fiddle with this
Criminalisation of homosexuality
no, “Gay Marriage” a monty pythonesque absurdity would be out but then it is only those who have fried their brains with drugs that could ever believe that a man marrying another man is equivalent to heterosexual marriage
Prayer in State Schools
We have that today, it usually comes out in Maori though
Banning of abortion
And so we should, it is killing of a defenseless human being AKA murder.
Regulation or banning of contraception
Other drugs are controlled by prescription and regulations, for good reason usually
Creationalism
You can’t regulate that
Restrictions on divorce
Vote:It is far too easy to get a divorce, indeed the laws today render marriage almost meaningless. Broken families are a good way to extend Big Government into the upbringing of children to everybody’s detriment
April 26th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
“Mr McQueen said parliament was lacking a political party that would make a strong and clear stand for…the sanctity of human life … [bring back the death penalty ... a CHP policy].”
Duh.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
In reply to Andrei — it probably depends on what church you are talking about.
Capital punishment and corporal punishment can be supported by lots of people that are not Christian. Similarly there are a number of Christians, wrongly in my view, who don’t support capital punishment and corporal punishment.
But it is interesting — the godless nasska thinks it is immoral and wrong for Christians to impose their view. But he thinks it is perfectly legitimate for him to impose his view.
Unfortunately quite a few people make the error that Christian views are illegitimate.
I bet they wouldn’t make the same argument with a Moslem MP. They wouldn’t dare to say because you’re a Moslem then you cannot bring your religious views into Parliament.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Scott, what month is it? May – named after the Roman goddess Maia. I hope you have worshipped her today! I know I have!
Anyway, we don’t use Anno Domini anymore, it’s BCE and CE. “Before the Common Era” and “Common Era”. It would be a bit silly to name our years after some outdated Middle Eastern religion!
The difference between fundamentalist Christians imposing their views and non-fundies imposing their views, is that the fundie views are not independent. They are decided by what church one belongs to, rather than from any rational consideration.
Fortunately most Christians are decent people, who don’t believe everything the church says. Unfortunately, they’re not the ones you hear from!
Also, you called nasska “godless”. You are also godless, but for whatever reason you tell yourself otherwise. There is hope… on their deathbed most people admit to themselves that there is no afterlife, and can then die in peace.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
@ tristanb actually it’s April still but your point is well made. you’ll need to do double prayers to Maia next month.
It’s also Tuesday and we should probably acknowledge the god of war, Mars, on his day.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
“I bet they wouldn’t make the same argument with a Moslem MP. They wouldn’t dare to say because you’re a Moslem then you cannot bring your religious views into Parliament.”
@ scott actually I wouldn’t but I wouldn’t say that to a “christian” either. What I would say is “don’t try and legislate your religion and impose your views on the rest of us”.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Haha, I realised that with about 6 seconds left to edit! I’m struggling to think what I’ve been writing down at work!
I will work hard to find a fitting sacrifice to Maia next month. Wikipedia says the etymology of April “is uncertain”, but maybe I’ll do a little something for Aphrodite/Venus this month.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
In reality govt.s legislate almost nothing but morality. Virtually every action, from determining the proper level at which to set tax rates, to whether abortion should be legal, or prostitution, gay marriage etc., involves some element of moral choice. If we are to have a truly representative democracy (which MMP claims to provide) then it needs to be representative of the operative values of its diverse (moral) citizens. By necessity, that means we ‘ll have Christians, Evironmentalists, trade unions, homosexuals, feminists, etc.
I just don’t get the “ban guys like Ewen McQueen” thing simply cos he’s a Christian or once worked with C.Heritage post-Capill.
OK, King Hit time: From Benjamin Franklin, 1778, letter to the French…
Vote:“He who shall introduce into public affairs the principals of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.” Old fundy! Tsk.
April 26th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
andrei @ 2.35pm
…..”Which values exactly do you think would be “forced upon you?”…..
While the answers you gave to my list would have merit to someone of your faith you have missed the gist of my original comment. Although I am personally in favour of some & soso on others any legislation that decriminalises or sanctions anything you find abhorent doesn’t force you to embrace that action. If divorce is made easier to obtain no one is forcing you down that path. Likewise if homosexual unions are not your cup of tea there is no way anyone is compelling you to take part.
BUT if your lot get near the levers of power you wish, indeed you believe that it is your divine duty, to make these things illegal, not only for yourselves but every other citizen of NZ. The essential difference is choice vs compulsion. If this doesn’t satisfy the definition of having something forced on to me then what does?
In my original comment I stated that although I did not deem your beliefs valid I considered that you had an absolute right to hold them. Since I don’t require you to live by my standards why should you compel me to live by yours?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Scott @ 3.05pm
….”Unfortunately quite a few people make the error that Christian views are illegitimate.”…….
You may wish to read my recent comment to ‘andrei’. I would also like to reiterate my original statement…. “I do not worship your God nor that of anyone else”…. which I reckon fairly states my views. Rest assured that if we get followers of Islam banging on in parliament about their precious religion I will be no less vehment in opposition.
Church & state make toxic bedfellows.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
What is wrong with Christian Heritage as opposd to the current National MP’s?
Social fascism is no worse than economic fascism.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Vote:ChurchAtheism & state make toxic bedfellows. Just ask the millions who died under The Most Profound Theoretician of Contemporary TimesApril 26th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
andrei
If having religion as a formal part of a government is such a great idea then how come your God let Stalin kill all those people?
The Yanks got it dead right, religion should play no part in any government.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Quoted in a post a couple of weeks back.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Lucia
Your point is?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Bruv,
My comment is directed to the Christian cowards in the comments who want to leave their Christianity at the door.
You can carry on.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Just for the sake of balance what about the French Wars of Religion 1562-98. During this little scuffle between Catholics & Protestants quite a few people dropped off the twig. Estimates vary between 2 to 4,000,000 or 0.04& to 0.8% of the then worlds population. The Muslims have a high tally also.
Prayer may be hazardous to your health.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Wrong
What it says is that congress cannot make the United States a Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Orthodox etc etc country, nor can it prohibit the practice of any faith.
It does not say “religion should play no part in any government“. And of course it is impossible to legislate religion out of government because religion is a fundamental part of the human psyche, whether you recognize it or not and whether you like it or not.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
religion is a fundamental part of the human psyche
For some humans, yes, but not all humans. And there are a heck of a lot of variations in religious psyche.
It’s standard for those who have religion as a fundamental part of their psyche to not be able to fathom someone not having it as a part of their psyche.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Lucia
I think the point is that most of us want them to leave their christianity at the door.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
andrei
The founding fathers were crystal clear in their determination to separate church and state, for you to suggest otherwise is simply untrue.
As for this little gem….
“And of course it is impossible to legislate religion out of government because religion is a fundamental part of the human psyche, whether you recognize it or not and whether you like it or not.”
What utter rubbish!
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Bruv,
That’s why they are cowards if they do what you want.
As for saying that it’s rubbish that religion is a fundamental part of the human psyche – the facts are against you. If you spend the time studying history, you will not find many atheistic societies, if at all. Even in today’s times as the Christian religion is being sidelined, the focus is shifting to pagan spirituality. There are still very few who are atheists.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Lucia
In NZ we elect people without knowing or caring what their religion is, even you should think that is a good thing.
Do you really want our elections to become like the US where no Presidential candidate has a chance if he says he does not believe in god?
Like it or not Lucia most Kiwis are not religious, they see the church as outdated, old fashioned and bigoted, they do not want any part of religion in our government.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
If you spend the time studying history, you will not find many atheistic societies, if at all.
It depends on how far back you go. There was a time before which everyone would have been an atheist, and there was no religious psyche at all.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Hearsay and doublespeak, religion, The bad parent.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Bruv,
Unless they are a practising Christian who won’t leave their Christianity at the door.
These two contradict your first sentence – do we care or don’t we?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Pete.
You mean when human beings didn’t exist?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
A common belief is that the human brain enlarged substantially about 500,000 years ago to an extent it was capable to communicate and reason, but until language skills developed sufficiently about 50,000 years ago religious beliefs would not have been likely. It’s impossible to know for sure – some sort of religious beliefs will have predated written language (but not speech) so there is no proof available.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
I have absolutely no problem with MPs who have strong and deep religious convictions. In fact I consider several of them my friends. My problem is when they seek to legislate their religious beliefs on New Zealand.
And of course the “non religious” don’t try to legislate their beliefs on New Zealand! Give me a break!
Vote:Everyone has a belief systym, it is normally only the Christians that most “love to hate”
April 26th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
You, you mean it’s an article of faith?
Well I never!
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Lucia personally I’m not comfortable at all with Christianity being advocated as part of the political debate and the reason is Jesus himself eschewed such.
It doesn’t seem to me, that it mixes.
I agree there is a lot the voice of Christianity adds to political discourse but I myself don’t think it’s a political position.
Therefore to me it should not purport to play in the arena rather if a Christian politician chooses to make a personal position statement on an issue or even many issues that to me, is the limit. A Christian Party cannot represent Christians, for whom are we but everyone and how do you pander to all of us?
Faith be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, et al, cuts across all political boundaries simply because it doesn’t and hasn’t ever pretended to be political, ever. Why start now?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
You gotta go hear this loony atheist preacher, its hilarious – he does all the things he accuses the religious of doing to indoctrinate people into his belief system.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
What do you mean by that, Reid? I’ve read you comment again (all the parts I haven’t quoted) and I still can’t figure it out. An example normally helps.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Render to Caesar Lucia.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Reid,
A concrete example.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Of what? (I’m not being disingenuous, but possibly obtuse.)
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I think the point here is, Reid, that there is a loud demand from the secularists that politicians vote in contradiction to their religious convictions where they conflict with the default secularist position. For example the expectation that a Catholic should vote for pro-abortion legislation, that being the accepted secularist position – but in conflict with the Churches stance.
Abortion appears in David’s original post as something to be preserved against the threat of a Christian dominated Parliament.
Not that it’s a big threat since most protestants sold out on that issue years ago
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Should we adjourn to GD? andrei how about I paste in your post and we take it from there?
Lucia you want to join us?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
I’d rather stay here, as it gets confusing otherwise, and it’s all related to the original post.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
andrei, I deplore as do we all, murder. And I know many who are heavily interested in this subject describe this as such.
Fact is, it is deplorable and it should not happen. However the disagreement is not in that, it’s in the way out of this mess.
That’s where there is no guidance and I don’t really care who gives it, politicians or religious leaders, it would just be nice were there to be some of it, on this.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
It’s not abortion per se. It’s the whole package – things like no fault divorce, sex education, the trivialization of marriage. The culture war.
From the post
Then a quote from Mr McQueen
So our host believes there is no place for this gentleman in National based upon the assumption, probably correct, that he is a social conservative and that it is not good for National electorally to stand social conservatives.
This stance, of course, derives from the fact that Mr Farrar is socially liberal and as such would marginalize social conservatives, in this case identifiable as such by an association with Calvinist Christianity.
And the post itself is an attempt to marginalize the gentleman
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Reid,
While as my question to you was really an attempt to find out if you knew exactly what you were saying, or if you’d just been brainwashed by the secularists. Andrei helped you with abortion – what to you would be “Christianity advocated as part of the political debate.” Is it enforcement of Christianity upon the populace (I’d be against that, btw) or is it just traditional Christian positions as Andrei has outlined?
Given David’s post, the Christians in National must be either under a very tight leash or hardly Christian.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
what to you would be “Christianity advocated as part of the political debate.”
Goodness Lucia that’s a big question.
To me it would be, a politician never talking about his or her faith, and never enuciating a policy which they proclaimed arose from it, but rather, merely living it, such that every Christian and non-Christian in the land knew this politician was, indeed a Christian.
It would include for example the politician giving his or her usual service to their local church and community as part of the expression of Christian faith, in addition of course to holding their Saturday Electoral Clinics.
A whole lot more stuff Lucia but you get the picture. In other words, Christianity communicated by actions, not words, at the deepest level, in both private and public, as only a politician could.
At the same time keeping the political and the religious assiduously separated, just as it should be. Politics is the art of tickling ears, isn’t it. That’s what Paul warned about, wasn’t it.
Vote:April 27th, 2011 at 1:00 am
“I don’t know Brent Robinson. All I know is that 150 members of a fundamentalist church signed up to try and help make him the candidate. To me that reeks of hostile takeover.
I’m all for aspiring candidates signing people up to National – but they should do that by door knocking and identifying National party supporters.
If a member of a rotary club sought nomination for National, there is no way I would expect 150 members of that rotary club join the party to vote for him. ”
I don’t get it…
Wouldn’t National have a ruling that one had to be a member for six months (or similar duration) before being about to stand for office, as a candidate, vote for candidate selection, or determine policy?
Otherwise a Party does indeed make itself vulnerable to a hostile take-over.
Vote:April 27th, 2011 at 6:44 am
There’s no such thing. There are a variety of Secularist positions, just as there are various Christian and other religious positions. That’s probably a major reason why Christian parties don’t get much support here, many Christians don’t like the straightjacket policy view that a minority of Christians have.
I’m sure there are many Christians, like Secularists, who prefer to look at each issue on it’s merits, and weigh up the pros and cons. The Christian Party default position is to ensure that any stance is backed up by some passage from the bible or some decree by the Pope, neither of which are in touch with the complexities of the modern world and it’s politics.
Vote:April 27th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Tau Henare was formerly leader of Mauri Pacific, and is a former NZ First MP. He successfully made the transition to a National Party MP so why not Ewen McQueen?
David Farrar’s argument that voters would be scared off by McQueen is hysterical nonsense. John Banks and Graeme Lee were both National MPs and cabinet ministers with conservative Christian views but that did not frighten off voters. National has already stood a former CHP member as a candidate and there is no evidence that voters were scared off.
Standing in a mainstream political party is exactly what McQueen should be doing. I find David Farrar’s suggestion that a National Party member should form a stand alone Christian party odd. Plainly that would not be in the National Party’s best interests because it would waste 2-4% of the vote as it did in 1996 and 1999, and it would do this at a time when National has few coaltion options given the aparent demise of Act.
Vote: