Once again,it is not your cathedral!

March 5th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The Anglican church says a British multimillionaire’s suggestion that it hand over Christ Church Cathedral for restoration is “completely bizarre”.

UK businessman Hamish Ogston yesterday announced he would fund an independent survey to find out what residents wanted to see happen to the ill-fated Cathedral Square centrepiece.

I’ve got a better idea. Why doesn’t Mr Ogston fund an independent survey to find out what residents think he should do with his money and property.

The media announcement took place at the Christchurch City Council building alongside former MPs and co-chairmen of the Great Christchurch Buildings Trust (GCBT), Jim Anderton and Philip Burdon, and Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel.

I don’t expect Anderton or Dalziel to understand what private property rights are. I’m disappointed that Burdon doesn’t seem to either. It is not their bloody cathedral. It is the Anglican Church’s.

Spokesman for the Anglican Diocese Jayson Rhodes told The Press Bishop Victoria Matthews was “astounded” when she heard about Ogston’s proposal through the media. “There was no information, no invitation to the announcement – there was nothing,” he said.

“It’s just completely bizarre and we feel like the odd one out at kindergarten when everyone else has been invited to a party except us.”

Incredible.

Dalziel said she liked the idea of “asking what people want for the heart of their city”.

“If the people of Christchurch send a strong message, it will help the conversation.”

No it won’t. Asking people about what a private owner should do is not helpful, but gross interference. It is even less helpful when the decision has been made, after the Church itself ran its own consultation exercise.

Tags:

59 Responses to “Once again,it is not your cathedral!”

  1. peterwn (3,140 comments) says:

    This just an extension of an ongoing trend where the RMA (and its Plans) and the Historic Places Act dictate to property owners what they can do to their properties.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Elaycee (4,286 comments) says:

    I’m not a member of the Anglican Church but support 100% their right to do what they want with their cathedral.

    It is appalling the likes of Anderton, Dalziel and Burdon still wish to try and impose their own views on those of the legal owners of a property.

    Someone needs to tell them all to butt out and allow the Church to proceed with the rebuild.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. iMP (2,231 comments) says:

    If the Labour/Greens get in to Govt., maybe they can threaten “consequences” against the Anglican church if they don’t do with their private property what the local Labour cartel say they should, just like the Rena.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. iMP (2,231 comments) says:

    Thank goodness Jim Anderton wasn’t elected mayor due to an (appropriate) Act of God; and that we have a responsible and resolute Bishop who won’t be pushed around and doesn’t play politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lindsay Addie (1,129 comments) says:

    iMP,

    If Anderton was elected mayor it wouldn’t have been anything to do with the Almighty it would have been Mephistopheles.

    Re the Cathedral, I live in Chch and like most I’m over this debate. There are more important issues in this city.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mandk (816 comments) says:

    Why would anyone want to build something to a 150 year old design anyway?

    You wouldn’t do that with a school, a hospital, a concert hall, a museum, an office building, or even a home. The fundamental purpose of a building may stay the same, but the way in which a building is used changes over time. Designs need to change to reflect this.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lucia Maria (2,202 comments) says:

    Considering that Anglicanism is the default state religion of New Zealand (even though in practice it’s Maori spiritualism), this whole notion of the Cathedral belonging to the Anglican church is not quite correct, even though in secular terms, everything you say, David, makes sense. So, there’s this underlying stuff that makes people think the Cathedral belongs to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. wreck1080 (3,722 comments) says:

    The only thing that made Cathedral square in Christchurch any good was the ‘stone’ cathedral.

    Building anything else will destroy the ambiance of cathedral square.

    But, of course they are the owners and have the right to do what they want. They have no responsibility to maintain cathedral square as a nice place to visit.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Judith (7,460 comments) says:

    Whilst I agree, and would hate others to tell me what to do with my private property, the Cathedral is a little different.

    The Anglican Church was quite happy to make money from it being promoted as an icon, and a symbol of the community of Christchurch, so in my opinion, they do have some responsibility towards the community because of their past use of the building’s communal popularity for their own gain.

    However, at the end of the day, the decision is theirs alone to make, but one would hope they would do so with an open mind, taking all factors into account.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Knock the fucking thing down and plant some grass seed. It’s just a bloody building.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Lindsay Addie (1,129 comments) says:

    big bruv,

    Not much is gonna happen until Jimbo and his dopey mates have their shot in the Supreme Court.

    I don’t disagree with your analysis though.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Harriet (4,495 comments) says:

    “…..I’ve got a better idea. Why doesn’t Mr Ogston fund an independent survey to find out what residents think he should do with his money and property….”

    Excellent point DPF.

    The same goes for those nosey bloody Maoris in Auckland and elsewhere – and they don’t even bother to do a survey either! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. OneTrack (2,564 comments) says:

    “I don’t expect Anderton or Dalziel to understand what private property rights are”

    The fascism is strong in those two, Obi Wan.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kimbo (667 comments) says:

    While the legality of the situation is clear-cut, the problem for the Anglicans is that when it suits them, their churches and cathedrals are promoted as “places at the center of the community for all the community”.

    So if you encourage that sort of spiritually misdirected (in my humble Calvinist opinion) enthusiasm for a bunch of lifeless bricks and mortars (and Popish stained glass!) :), then don’t be surprised when the emotionally immature who buy into it will not let go.

    Plus when it suits the Anglican Church they go running cap in hand to local Councils pushing the “community” angle to extract funds for building and upkeep.

    OK. So if it is for the community, then all the community gets a measure of control.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. James Stephenson (2,006 comments) says:

    If the Pope can get away with saying “fuck”, I don’t see why Bishop Matthews can’t add an “off”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RightNow (6,642 comments) says:

    I understand the Cathedral owners have over the years received (and willingly accepted) millions from various sources to maintain and keep the Cathedral.

    Not as cut and dry as my house, for example, which only ever costs me money.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. metcalph (1,359 comments) says:

    I was especially amused to see a quoted reconstruction price of $67 million. As prior estimates by pro-reconstructionists were something like $100 million and the Town Hall is costing $125 million (supposedly), I guess the new estimate is based on using North Korean Slave Labour to keep down the labour costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. metcalph (1,359 comments) says:

    Plus when it suits the Anglican Church they go running cap in hand to local Councils pushing the “community” angle to extract funds for building and upkeep.

    That was on the order of $25,000 to cope for wear and tear involving public activities that made use of the Cathedral. How this equates as a 100% equity in the stake of the cathedral’s future involves Ponzi scheme accountancy IMO.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. metcalph (1,359 comments) says:

    And lastly the Anglican Church has already had a consultation exercise (anybody could participate). A plurality favoured a new cathedral.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. iMP (2,231 comments) says:

    Let’s remember that the Anglicans were here before Christchurch, by several hundred years, and that christchurch was founded by royal decree as a Bishop’s seat. That is why it is Christ Church “for the purpose of evangelising Christian souls.” Any notions of “secular” has evolved since on the benefits, work and pioneering of the early Anglicans, Methodists, Maori and settlers.

    You can’t remove, or separate off, religion from life. A cathedral represnets that, as it does in thousands of cities all around the world. The church is a separate Estate (the First Estate) of the community as the media is the Fourth.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kimbo (667 comments) says:

    @ Lucia Maria

    Considering that Anglicanism is the default state religion of New Zealand

    Not South of the Waitaki, it ain’t! The Free Presbyterian Republic of Otago abides. :)

    Pompallier and the Methodists were here along with the CMS before the Treaty was signed. Our British forebears came from the four home countries and there was a requirement for secular (i.e., non-sectarian) education from the 1870s.

    There is NO default state religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nick R (497 comments) says:

    I think you will find the High Court decided that this is not a simple case of the Anglican church exercising ordinary private property rights over the cathedral, for a number of reasons. That’s why it stopped them from using the insurance payout to establish a new cathedral somewhere else. Doesn’t mean they can’t demolish it but they are not free to do with the land as they like. They have a binding legal obligation to maintain a cathedral there.

    That said – it is a bit odd for some foreign millionaire to go sticking his oar in at this late stage. What’s it to him?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. georgebolwing (602 comments) says:

    I find it fascinating that the leading lights of the so-called “progressive” left partes are the ones so wedded to the past and rebuilding Christchurch as it was. This to me is a clear demonstration of their fixation with the idea of a golden past to which they want us to return, rather than looking forward to a more prosperous future.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. James Stephenson (2,006 comments) says:

    I googled him, apparently one of Yorkshire’s biggest philanthropists.

    So Hamish, as one Tyke to another, do us all a favour lad, and fuck off home.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Scott (1,696 comments) says:

    My sources inform me that the congregation of the Cathedral is only about 150 people. The relatively small congregation simply cannot afford an expensive rebuild of what is an old building that is totally unsuited to the needs of the modern congregation. Even if they were able to raise all of that money they would have at the end of it an old building. A picturesque building sure but one that is I imagine difficult to heat, difficult to light, expensive to maintain and without all of the modern facilities that the congregation requires today such as a stage upfront for the worship band, a large foyer, a purpose-built creche etc etc.

    Apparently the move to the cardboard Cathedral has been a great success. The building has much more lightness and air than the previous Cathedral. I cannot imagine why the courts should demand that the church should maintain the old Cathedral? At the end of the day the decision as to what to do with the ruined Cathedral should rest with the Anglican church.And not some busy bodies who have never darkened the door of that church in their lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Lance (2,439 comments) says:

    I am sure he is entitled to buy some land in ChCh. Build a mega-expensive stone replica of the Cathedral himself and gift it to the people of Chch.
    Everyone would rejoice and the people would make merry.

    Back to the real world……

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. geoff3012 (51 comments) says:

    Here’s an idea……

    Why doesn’t the invisible man in the sky wave his magic wand and fix this problem just like he/she fixes everything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. UglyTruth (3,929 comments) says:

    The reason that the idea that the public have a say in this even gets of the starting block is because of the language that is used. The term “property” is ambiguous, it can refer to to real property (in this case the land and what remains of the cathedral), and it can refer to personal property, in which the state has an interest and public opinion is relevant.

    The church could avoid any ambiguity simply by indicating publicly that its land and buildings are private property, with the congregation and/or public being invited for services and visits in the usual way.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. UglyTruth (3,929 comments) says:

    There is NO default state religion.

    Except of course for the religion of the head of state, i.e. Anglican Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ciaron (1,312 comments) says:

    I cannot imagine why the courts should demand that the church should maintain the old Cathedral?
    Most probably due to the fineprint of their insurance policy to prevent them investing the money elsewhere… Pretty standard in my experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kimbo (667 comments) says:

    Except of course for the religion of the head of state, i.e. Anglican Christianity.

    Nope. We don’t share her nationality (British) so why should we share her religion? As her foolish ancestor Charles I found out when he tried to impose bishops on his Scots Presbyterian subjects. Mind, you, Elizabeth II being the wise sovereign she is, doesn’t believe or try to practice the ‘divine right of kings’ like the Stuarts.

    Even the reference in the speaker’s prayer in Parliament to, “the maintenance of true religion” is non-denominational. Admittedly it is Christian, with tolerance and enfranchisement for all within its original scope

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. KathyS (17 comments) says:

    Not sure I agree in this case, David. Yes, sure, private property. However the cathedral is also more than that, in Christchurch’s case. It has become a symbol of Christchurch and has very much been part of the identity and marketing of the city over the years, for the council and other businesses. It “is” Christchurch, in that sense, which accounts for so much of the angst about it since it crumbled.

    I’m a bit puzzled why people aren’t grateful this guy is offering up his dosh…. I would be.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Richard Hurst (752 comments) says:

    It is truly miraculous that the Catholics have been left alone to get on with sorting out what to do with their heavily damaged Basilica (which was a far more impressive Mountfort building than the Anglican cathedral and just as historically significant) while the Anglicans are still in a permanent state of siege under attack from all sides and from every passing millionaire Yorkshireman. Clearly God is a Catholic ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kimbo (667 comments) says:

    Clearly God is a Catholic ;)

    Not in Christchurch and Canterbury.

    As it was originally an Anglican settlement, with the Cathedral at the very center as the spiritual and cultural hub as per the medieval model, all others are postscripts and latecomers in the civic architecture. Hence the focus on Cathedral Square. Location, location, location…

    Plus he has always been Presbyterian :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. UglyTruth (3,929 comments) says:

    Nope. We don’t share her nationality (British) so why should we share her religion?

    It doesn’t matter. At issue is the state religion, and the people are not the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kimbo (667 comments) says:

    It doesn’t matter. At issue is the state religion, and the people are not the state.

    Hmm. Yes, but it doesn’t work the other way either. Louis XIV may have claimed “”L’État, c’est moi” (“I am the state”)”, but QEII (God bless her) doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    The Cathedral does not, in any way, shape, or form, belong to the “people” of Christchurch. Even if it was iconic of the old Christchurch, it belongs to the Church and the Church alone.

    Dalziel, Anderton, and other socialist haters of private property, which seems to include Philip Burdon, have zero right to have any say whatsoever. Anderton is not an Anglican. He contributes nothing to the Anglican church. He thus has zero right to even have an opinion. He should butt out and keep the vicious, hate-mongering xenophobia he has directed at Bishop Victoria to himself, and stop embarrassing our city with his rantings.

    Dalziel, Anderton and Burton do no represent public opinion on this. They are speaking solely for themselves and out of their own hubris.

    Most Christchtchurch people have long since moved on, and many support a new design. The rantings of a tiny minority, led by two hard left socialists, is important only in their own minds.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    It is incorrect to say that Anglicanism is the state religion in NZ. That is true only in England itself. While the Queen is head of the Church, in a purely symbolic way, this is a separate function to her role as head of state.

    In colonial countries such as NZ, Australia, and Canada, the Anglican Church does not, and as far as I’m aware, has never had any status as an official state denomination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Scott (1,696 comments) says:

    Clearly God is a Catholic ;)
    Plus he has always been Presbyterian :)

    You two are both wrong. Clearly God is a Baptist :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (13,315 comments) says:

    NZ will be much better off the day the prehistoric NeAnderton goes away for good.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ShawnLH (3,182 comments) says:

    Actually, God is Jewish. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RRM (9,420 comments) says:

    I’m still waiting for someone to propose a scheme like the following:

    1) I think the Cathedral should be restored. Therefore:
    2) I offer to buy the cathedral ruins and site for $1.
    3) I will rebuild the cathedral, to meet modern design standards, but preserving the original fabric, using my own funds.
    4) On completion, I will gift the restored cathedral to (Anglicans or CCC) conditional on it being used and maintained as before.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. MT_Tinman (2,984 comments) says:

    KathyS (8 comments) says:
    March 5th, 2014 at 11:49 am
    Not sure I agree in this case, David. Yes, sure, private property. However the cathedral is also more than that, in Christchurch’s case. It has become a symbol of Christchurch and has very much been part of the identity and marketing of the city over the years, for the council and other businesses. It “is” Christchurch, in that sense, which accounts for so much of the angst about it since it crumbled.

    Horse shit!

    Worse than Lucia and Wreck (both 09:24) above you – and that takes some doing.

    Christchurch is it’s people, the pile of Halswell rock (in whatever shape) is nothing more than exactly that.

    Big Bruv (09:26) is for once (obviously he’s not talking cricket) correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. MT_Tinman (2,984 comments) says:

    RRM (8,821 comments) says:
    March 5th, 2014 at 12:35 pm
    I’m still waiting for someone to propose a scheme like the following:

    Better still RRM why not use the site for it’s original intended purpose – a boys school called Christs College – and shift the cathedral to the St Michaels site?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Fentex (855 comments) says:

    While, as a Christchurch resident, I don’t want to compel the Anglican church actions over the Cathedral, and agree that the proper thing to do is, if they wish, build a new one for both financial and aesthetic purposes I don’t think it’s honest to couch this as simply a matter of private property rights.

    Christchurch rate payers do have a financial interest in that land – we have given money and privileges to the Anglicans regarding it and if they didn’t wish to acknowledge so they shouldn’t have brazenly called it “Our Cathedral” in the past.

    It is dishonest to invoke common cause and efforts at one time then selfishly hide from past contributors later.

    Personally I think Christchurch ought buy that land and build a new civic centre integrated with the square as a whole for the use of the city as a central location for celebration and commemorations and forever divorce the Anglicans from being tied up in the issue, let them alone, on their own, to the side.

    But as is it is their choice, and the right choice is to build anew if building there. There’s no need to shrink in fear of the future by trying to recreate the past. That is shallow and debilitating.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. RRM (9,420 comments) says:

    Fentex –

    CCC ratepayers had been stumping up about $200k a year to maintain the cathedral prior to the earthquake, isn’t that right?

    I wonder what the actual terms of that agreement were.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. OneTrack (2,564 comments) says:

    kathys – “I’m a bit puzzled why people aren’t grateful this guy is offering up his dosh…. I would be.”

    Because it is not enough money. How about I tell you that you have to buy an apartment that costs $1,000,000 and I will give you a hundred dollars. Are you grateful – I’m giving you a hundred dollars. What could be wrong with that?

    Actually, (completely off topic), it’s similar to what Lecherous Len tried to do. He was trying to bribe John Key with $250 dollars , taken from every man, woman and child in the Auckland area, so that the national government would “have” to put in 20 times that (and before anyone screams, I think Len has cooked the books and the train set to nowhere will cost at least $5 billion).

    Key should have been GRATEFUL for the money that Len came up with (even though Len didn’t actually know where he was going to get it from. I have a fair idea of what would have happened)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. OneTrack (2,564 comments) says:

    Just a suggestion, how about all the people who want the cathedral returned exactly how it was, buy that thing off the Church at it’s fully insured value. Then you can do what you want with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Rowan (1,778 comments) says:

    Good points DPF, next court should tell Anderton where to stick it and award costs against him, It is tragic what has happened to it but its time to move on, and let the church demolish the wreckage. Am sick of Anderton and the heritage zealots/do godders telling others what do do with their property.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Grizz (500 comments) says:

    The who Christchurch City centre will change. There will be new attractions and innovations. However, it was only luck (some say an act of god) that no one was killed by the crumbling Cathedral. The church should do the right thing and build a new Cathedral that will match the modern architecture of the new City. However, by all means, have a museum of remembrance for the old building. But FFS Jim and co, move on. Let it go. The sky will not fall on your head.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Bob R (1,334 comments) says:

    ***Why would anyone want to build something to a 150 year old design anyway?***

    @ mandk,

    Why make Coke using the original formula rather than New Coke? Maybe some things are classic, are part of the identity of a place and the memory of it? There are loads of reasons why people would want an iconic building rebuilt the way it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. UglyTruth (3,929 comments) says:

    It is incorrect to say that Anglicanism is the state religion in NZ. That is true only in England itself.

    Why would it be true there but not here?

    While the Queen is head of the Church, in a purely symbolic way, this is a separate function to her role as head of state.

    Religion isn’t something you can isolate from a particular leadership role, symbolic or otherwise. Religion shapes perception at a fundamental level, influencing the way we interpret what we see and hear so that it has meaning within our belief systems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. UglyTruth (3,929 comments) says:

    At issue is the state religion, and the people are not the state.

    Hmm. Yes, but it doesn’t work the other way either. Louis XIV may have claimed “”L’État, c’est moi” (“I am the state”)”, but QEII (God bless her) doesn’t.

    What practical difference is there between someone claiming to be the state and the state saying that someone is its head?

    The point is that the values of the state are shaped by its religion just as the values of people are shaped by their religious beliefs.

    When religious values conflict with actual behaviour in an individual then that individual has a major problem. The state is outwardly religious – an Anglican head of state, parliamentary prayers, and a Westminster-style structure, and yet in practice the state is secular, denying the role of deity within the common law and injuring the natural rights of the people which flow from deity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    What is the hold up on the Cathedral?

    It is kind of an important building for a City Called ???? “Christchurch” isn’t it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Rebuild the Cathedral in a similar style 10-100 times stronger

    of Change the name of the City to

    HEATHEN HOVEL

    that is what you want back to
    Cannibalism and Head hunting

    for the Commie Lovers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. SPC (5,334 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, because New Zealand has no state church. The Crown of the UK is head of the state church of England but while the same person may be and is Crown of New Zealand office holder they are not head of any church in New Zealand.

    The state in New Zealand is not outwardly religious, the practice within parliament is aping the practice of the London parliament but without the same premise. It is a cultural practice with no basis in law.

    Does the deity really have status in common law, or do you only imagine that is the case? Do natural rights flow from deity or from law? Constitutional law can exist in a practical sense without being formalised. In the USA this was formalised when they separated from royalty – and claimed the peoples had a right under God to do so. This right naturally included rejection of the former royal claims that the throne acted under God on behalf of the people – thus replacing throne with constitution. The rights then flow via the constitution, not from deity as they earlier flowed from the throne (under its protection), not from deity.

    The law of the throne is not the same thing as the religion of the Crown as the religion of the Crown (should there be a religion of the Crown) and the people could and often is different. Thus the common law rights of the people are not to be connected as coming from the deity of the Crown.

    I realise that there are those of Judaism, Christianity and Islam who believe that instructions as to the laws men should live under could be received by the prophets of God. And thus the confusion between religion and common law, because Kings like Alfred liked to justify their kingship with a certain pretension regarding the role and status of royalty under God. But the law applies to all, regardless of belief in deity, confidence in what self declared prophets of God claimed to have heard and the manifest hubris of many of those who sat on thrones in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kimbo (667 comments) says:

    What practical difference is there between someone claiming to be the state and the state saying that someone is its head?

    Much! It acknowledges and places limits on the power of the head of state, and also the state itself to interfere in the lives of people within it. Don’t believe me? Study what life was like for the Hugenots when the tyrant Louis XIV arbitrarily and capriciously revoked the tolerance of the Edict of Nantes!

    However, over the Channel they applied a different constitutional principle: Lex Rex/The Law is King (which means, by default ultimately the king is not!). Which is why the Hanovers were never guillotined as Louis XIV’s successor was. The British Monarchy knows that its representative nature is ultimately by the constitutional agreement of its subjects. The last who disagreed was James II (and VII of Scotland) – who was deposed in the Glorious Revolution.

    So it is not necessarily true to say,

    When religious values conflict with actual behaviour in an individual then that individual has a major problem.

    Or at least it isn’t if the state (with the sovereign as nominal head) grants tolerance. Don’t believe me? The Anglican Prayer Book’s liturgy of the sacrament steers a Via Media between the transubstantiation of the Roman Catholics, and the lack of spiritual presence of the Baptists. Yet all co-exist in one civic polity. More to the point, so too do atheists, in spite of QEII being “defender of the Faith”!

    Religion isn’t something you can isolate from a particular leadership role, symbolic or otherwise. Religion shapes perception at a fundamental level, influencing the way we interpret what we see and hear so that it has meaning within our belief systems.

    Indeed it does. However, I’d suggest you are confusing spirituality with the outward form of religion, and its multi-faceted expressions of sectarianism. Also, it is not an inexorable influence. It can be resisted, altered, or just plain old ignored.

    The National Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, yet QEII is still their head of state. The Welsh are predominantly Methodist in their religious heritage, yet QEII is still their head of state. You want to tell them Anglicanism is their “default state religion” or that it influences them above their own institutional forms?! Good luck bringing the Celts to heel on that, and we haven’t even mentioned the Roman Catholics of Northern Ireland, or the growing Muslim communities in the UK! So the same applies here in Her Majesty’s most loyal dominion of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. UglyTruth (3,929 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, because New Zealand has no state church.

    SPC, I assume that you a responding to my question from 8:25 when I asked why England would have a a state religion but not NZ.

    A church as a readily identifiable religious organization isn’t an essential part of a religion. For example there could be a group of believers who didn’t associate with each other in the traditional religious sense, but the religion would still have a real effect in shaping the actions of those believers.

    Does the deity really have status in common law, or do you only imagine that is the case?

    Blackstone, described as one of the sources of the common law, wrote: “Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being.”

    Do natural rights flow from deity or from law?

    Again from Blackstone: “Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable.”

    The natural right of liberty is injured by the state when it enforces its policy of licencing the ordinary use of public roads.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    If John Key Can get his Israeli mates in an out of CHCH in 14 hours on day 1
    with 1 phone call – NOT 4?

    How hard is it to rebuild a cathedral?

    For CHRISTS SAKE

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.