Winston wanting to steal the cathedral off the Anglican Church

March 15th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Press reports:

Restoration of the Christ Church Cathedral could be a condition of any post-election coalition deal, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says.

The potential power is going to his head. This is like saying a condition of any coalition deal could be the confiscation of the building owned by Mrs Smith-Jones of Lower Hutt.

The cathedral is owned by the Anglican Church. Politicians vowing to force them to restore it, rather than replace it, are effectively saying we wish to steal it from the Church and make ourselves the owners so we can decide what is done with it.

He told The Press restoration of the cathedral would “certainly” be part of coalition talks with the Government if he secured enough votes in the September election.

“I’ve already given a written commitment that I would raise this in any negotiations,” he said.

“I am seriously committed to this project. It means much more than just the cathedral.”

Peters was “very, very confident” a deal could be reached.

I’m very confident it can’t be, unless Peters think parties will agree to a law change stealing the cathedral off the church. The church has already made a decision.

Peters said he did not understand why Bishop Victoria Matthews did not want to restore the building.

“I don’t understand how the specialness of this building is not grasped. I don’t want to open a personal feud with the bishop, but on this matter she is seriously wrong. I’m not Anglican and I’m from the North Island, but that’s my view.”

So maybe you should shut the fuck up on it then? Only Anglicans living in Christchurch get to decide.

Anglican church spokesman Jayson Rhodes said Peters’ comments suggested “the cathedral be taken off the Anglican church”.

He said it was surprising that Peters had not spoken to the church trustees who had made a decision based on “issues including building resilience and cost”.

Peters’ suggestion that the land was gifted to the church by European settlers was wrong.

“It was Anglicans giving to Anglicans.”

Just bullshit grandstanding.

Tags: ,

210 Responses to “Winston wanting to steal the cathedral off the Anglican Church”

  1. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Hell will freeze over before an alcoholic philandering heathen liar dictates Church policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. peterwn (3,273 comments) says:

    Bit of pot-kettle-black here. The Diocese has a ‘social justice enabler’ Jolyon White who had his moment of fame in the 2011 election when he organised the defacement (‘The Rich Deserve More’ etc) of National Party hoardings around New Zealand. He is the sort who would advocate Robin Hood tax policies to try and address income ‘inequality’. This would be for the greater good of NZ. Given this, then why should the Anglican Diocese of Christchurch object to Winston Peters’ and Jim Anderton’s proposals to do a Robin Hood type grab on the cathedral land for the greater good of Christchurch.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    It is barely even grandstanding. No government has the power to do what he’s wanting, and any that tried, well, Iv’e met the Bishop…..

    Never gonna happen.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    Beware of drunken dwarfs trying to use the Cathedral to pull out votes from the aged population in Christchurch. Has the object of scorn ever been inside it ?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    I have lived in Christchurch for over 20 years. The Christchurch Cathedral was a landmark representative of Christchurch, well beyond just the Anglicans that it served. HOWEVER, at what cost do you restore a landmark? What do you give up to rebuild it? Unless the public at large are willing and able to contribute to the rebuild, it cannot happen. The cost is prohibitive. Then we have to decide what we don’t do. I agree that it is the responsibility of the Anglican Church in Christchurch, who are sensitive to the feelings of the wider community, but the church is also bound by simple economic and engineering realities.

    I like the idea of keeping some part of the old cathedral as some sort of monument which is either stand-alone or incorporated into a new building, much like what has been done with some of the cathedrals in Europe that were severely damaged during World War II. Whatever is done will become a symbol of the newly risen Christchurch.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. backster (2,172 comments) says:

    Looks like old Jim Anderton has deserted Labour in order to join old Winston First maybe they are both looking for baubles from God.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. EAD (1,087 comments) says:

    Buildings like the Cathedral and symbols such as our flag are a powerful connection to our past. A past that many a politician would rather we forget about as they now proclaim us to be “part of Asia” when quite geographically, historically and culturally we are not.

    “Modernisers” like DPF use the “private property” line selectively when it suits them but when it comes to the most private property of the lot, our own body, they are quite happy to decide what we drink, smoke and for some of them the crusade is now how much sugar we consume!

    The question is, why do they want us to forget our past? A past that has given us everything that is good and decent and made NZ such a pleasurable place to live by giving us the pillars of the rule of law, freedom of speech, private property, the gift of the English language and above all, Individual Liberty?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    Although Winston should take full benefit of any lightning bolt, I wouldn’t stand closer than, say, twenty feet before the Election … let alone vote for the bastard.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    EAD,

    I agree, but so far the replacement proposals have been respectful of our past. Even the fairly “modern” version had a distinctly old Europe look.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Only Anglicans living in Christchurch get to decide.

    Technically the state is Anglican since the head of state is “supreme governor” of the Anglican Church.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Yogibear (366 comments) says:

    If Win and Jim want to do something with private land they should give the Anglicans the same option as all other red zoners. Pay them out and acquire the land. They can build what they like on it then.

    Churches, first and foremost exist for the benefit of their particular religious communities. The fact they may be iconic buildings or tourist attractions is secondary. Compelling the church to do something that they themselves have decided does not meet their needs not only infringes on private property rights but could also in the extreme be considered an intervention in the operations of that faith.

    The dangerous game Jim and Win are playing is they may have to reach a financial deal with the church to get them to rebuild in the manner the non-owners have deemed appropriate. That’s the only way restoration will happen without cutting across private property rights.

    I’m willing to bet other owners of heritage buildings are watching closely and will demand a similar deal. For example the Catholic Church could easily argue that refusal to provide state funds for their restorations could be construed as religious discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    I have had a gustful of outsiders telling the Anglican Church what they should be doing with their own cathedral.

    But the fact this latest brain fart has come Peters, should be no surprise. He will say anything (and I mean anything) to get a mention in the media.

    It’s long overdue he took his seat in the parliamentary departure lounge.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The question is, why do they want us to forget our past?

    Because the past emphasises the connection between law and deity while the modern state favours a secular view of the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The Anglican church stopped having the right to 100% say on what happens to the Cathedral the day they were happy to accept rate payer money towards its up keep in my opinion.

    Whilst I don’t see it as a concern of other New Zealanders I do think the Church has a responsibility to the rate payers of Christchurch – you don’t just take the money and be happy to share when things are going good – the church initiated that relationship and is now bound to adhere to it and at least consult with those who have given money towards it.

    If the Church had wanted to keep itself exclusive, – it should have never accepted outside money.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. JMS (330 comments) says:

    UglyTruth is actually talking some sense here for a change.

    I guess people are just so used to voting down his other stuff.

    I don’t think he’s implying that the taxpayer should rebuild the cathedral.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    Judith,

    the calls for full restoration are not coming from ratepayers in general, but from a very small number of individuals who have no right to an opinion.

    Ugly Truth,

    The Anglican Church is not the state church of NZ, except in your own tiny mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ UglyTruth (2,292 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 11:39 am

    I don’t think this is a matter of law, or secularisation or anything similar. It is about icons, and the things that people associate with their identities.

    That Cathedral for many years has been the icon from which the local people, and kiwis associate with Christchurch. Ignore the religious connotations, it is a symbol of heritage, community and survival – it’s resurrection would be a symbol of conquering adversity for many – and perhaps even a score against the scorn of mother nature.

    The Church needs to accept that the building was much much more than just a place of worship to many many people. It is not just its physical presence but it’s spiritual meaning, over and above the religious aspect.

    The church itself, when begging for money for upkeep used those very arguments to the council so they could receive assistance to keep the building maintained – NOW they want to ignore their own argument – it just doesn’t work that way.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Yogibear (366 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth and JMS. I thought that was the case and there may have been some sort of connection with the State. But no.

    The monarch has absolutely no formal or legal role in the Anglican Church outside of the UK.

    So it is completely a private matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “The church itself, when begging for money for upkeep used those very arguments to the council so they could receive assistance to keep the building maintained – NOW they want to ignore their own argument – it just doesn’t work that way.”

    Yes, it does. Accepting help for upkeep does not mean that you have rescinded ownership or property rights.

    And it is NOT the “people of Christchurch” calling for restoration, but a few politicians and heritage busybodies who are not at all representative of majority opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    I blogged about this earlier this morning. If there were not already enough reasons not to vote for Winston First, this is the icing on the cake. The cathedral is solely the property of the Anglican Church, and decisions as to its future are for the church to make, not busybody populists like Peters.

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/another-reason-not-to-vote-for-nz-first.html

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    So two of the country’s political fossils have found God?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Technically the state is Anglican since the head of state is “supreme governor” of the Anglican Church.

    Using that totally fallacious logic, then we are all English too as our Head of State is also the Queen of England.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    Jim Anderton does not speak for the ratepayers of Chch. Winston Peters does not speak for the ratepayers of Chch. The Heritage groups certainly do not speak foe the ratepayers of Christchurch. Judith does not speak for the ratepayers of Chch.

    Lot’s of arrogant busybodies who speak for no one but themselves, and none of whom are Anglicans. They all need to get a life and stop telling others what to do with their property.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ciaron (1,434 comments) says:

    I disagree Judith.
    The Council (and ratepayers) have contributed to the upkeep of the Cathedral, but (big but), the council have been allowed to leverage the Cathedral for it’s own ends (thinking logo, tourism etc.) which do not coincide with the goals of the church. So in my opinion the transaction is complete.

    As for the Church, spending priorities are thus:

    1) Spread the Gospel of Christ: Crucified, Buried and Resurrected.

    2) Train believers to spread the Gospel (1 Peter 3:15).

    3) Community projects (Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments).

    875432) Buildings.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “The Council (and ratepayers) have contributed to the upkeep of the Cathedral, but (big but), the council have been allowed to leverage the Cathedral for it’s own ends (thinking logo, tourism etc.) which do not coincide with the goals of the church. So in my opinion the transaction is complete.”

    Correct. The exchange was mutual, allowing the Council to use the Cathedral for promotion and tourism. It was a two way street. Judith’s idea that this gives Jim Anderton or Peters some right to dictate to the church is ignorant nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (347 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Actually Shawn, I was both christened and confirmed an anglican (by the Late Sir Paul Reeves too!) – it never pays to ‘assume’!

    And I NEVER said that Peter’s or Anderton have any rights – I was very clear that the rate payers of Christchurch do – you should run for politics – you’re great at twisting what people say and assuming.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Paulus (2,627 comments) says:

    One must ask the question – Is Winston now a Catholic.
    He must have come under the influence of Jim Anderton – not satisfied with his restoration of views of the Anglicans, but cannot turn himself to his Church, the Basilica (they won’t have him back as a Catholic too I expect).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Using that totally fallacious logic, then we are all English too as our Head of State is also the Queen of England.

    If my argument contained a fallacy then you should be able to identify that fallacy.

    Your straw man rests on the assumption that “we all” are part of the state. The people are not the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    Except Judith, the ratepayers are not leading this campaign. Politicians are.

    And nobody is baptised or confirmed into any denomination, but into Christ. What makes an Anglican is ongoing attendance and support.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Judith’s idea that this gives Jim Anderton or Peters some right to dictate to the church is ignorant nonsense.

    The ignorant nonsense is yours, ShawnLH. Judith didn’t imply that any right to dictate existed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (349 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    Yes Shawn – politicians are the people that many go to when they need assistance – they are our ‘representatives’. Our politicians are approached by people from all walks of life to speak on their behalf over a variety of issues – even if they aren’t the politicians that are of your ‘taste’, they are still doing what some people expect of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (349 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    Then you need to have a good talk to the church officials Shawn, Clearly they don’t see it like you do!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    if the grand coalition of garbage (greens, labour, mana, nz first, maori, united) get in, they will just chuck an earthquake levy on the “rich”. from that they will have a big pool of OPM to spend on shit like this.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    Here’s a grand opportunity from God for the Anglicans to sacrifice themselves and invest millions into the community instead of dead buildings.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “Yes Shawn – politicians are the people that many go to when they need assistance – they are our ‘representatives’. ”

    Nice fantasy. The ratepayers have not gone to Jim Anderton and asked him to speak for them. He is speaking only for himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “Then you need to have a good talk to the church officials Shawn, Clearly they don’t see it like you do!’

    Yes, they do. I actually know the Bishop personally. Do you? I spent four years at an Anglican theological college so I understand Anglican theology very well.

    Your talking rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The ratepayers have not gone to Jim Anderton and asked him to speak for them.

    Straw man. Judith wasn’t talking about ratepayers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    @ Shawn – I’m still puzzled as to why Anderton, who is a Roman Catholic, does not use his energies to rebuild the once magnificent Basilica in Christchurch. Instead, he’s telling the Anglicans what to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (350 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    You are being stupid now, because I know for a fact, as does anyone that has watched with interest this debate, that there are some rate payers in Christchurch that do support Mr Anderton. You really are content on making a fool of yourself by making such broad sweeping all-inclusive statements, aren’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “Straw man. Judith wasn’t talking about ratepayers.”

    Yes, she was. She mentions ratepayers repeatedly. Here is a quote from her…”I do think the Church has a responsibility to the rate payers of Christchurch”

    That anal probe still giving you problems?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “there are some rate payers in Christchurch that do support Mr Anderton”

    Some? Two? Three? Twelve? How many? You use “ratepayers” in the general sense, but unless you can show a large majority on this, it is still a minority, unrepresentative opinion, from people who have no right to a say in the first place. And that includes ratepayers. Ratepayers are not the owners of the Cathedral.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (352 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    I will try to put this simply for you to understand.

    ALL the rate payers of Christchurch have contributed to the ongoing maintenance of the Cathedral in the past via the payment of their rates.

    SOME of those ratepayers no doubt support the Anglican church and its plans, SOME of them do not. AT LEAST a few of the rate payers in CHCH have come out publicly in support of Mr Anderton – therefore you CANNOT make statements like ‘the ratepayers’ do not support him – because some do!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I spent four years at an Anglican theological college so I understand Anglican theology very well.

    Can you explain why an Anglican state would misrepresent the role of deity in law?

    The common law, which is a body of law built up from decisions made in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand.
    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-new-zealand-legal-system

    ex terre: The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “@ Shawn – I’m still puzzled as to why Anderton, who is a Roman Catholic, does not use his energies to rebuild the once magnificent Basilica in Christchurch. Instead, he’s telling the Anglicans what to do.”

    Good point. He could care less about the Cathedral. He’s just grandstanding politically. I think xenophobic bigotry comes into play as well. he has repeatedly taken swipes at the fact that the Bishop is Canadian.

    The guy is a Stalinist bigot who has spent a career arrogantly claiming ownership to other peoples property.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “Can you explain why an Anglican state would misrepresent the role of deity in law?”

    1. It hasn’t.

    2. Your assuming I care less what a nutjob conspiracy theorist thinks about any subject.

    3. I know what common law is. I doubt that you do.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Yogibear (366 comments) says:

    @keeping stock. This was partly the point of my post. If the pressure results in taxpayer funds going to the Anglicans, because the cathedral is the most logical target, then a bunch of other privately owned heritage buildings have a base on which to argue equal treatment.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Yes, she was.

    Not from the context that you quoted, which was:

    “Yes Shawn – politicians are the people that many go to when they need assistance – they are our ‘representatives’. Our politicians are approached by people from all walks of life to speak on their behalf over a variety of issues – even if they aren’t the politicians that are of your ‘taste’, they are still doing what some people expect of them.”

    That anal probe still giving you problems?

    Did you get your interest in anal probes from your religious education, ShawnLH?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    From you and Reid UT, KB’s resident believers in alien lizard people taking over the world :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “Can you explain why an Anglican state would misrepresent the role of deity in law?”

    1. It hasn’t.

    So how do you explain the difference between the state description of the common law and the definition from Black’s dictionary of law?

    2. Your assuming I care less what a nutjob conspiracy theorist thinks about any subject.

    No, I don’t assume that. I’m showing how your position is in conflict with the facts.

    3. I know what common law is. I doubt that you do.

    You think that common law is what the state tells you it is?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Yogibear (366 comments) says:

    Mind you, I don’t give Anderson that much credit for strategic thinking. I’m more in Shaun’s camp about personal vanity dressed up as altruism.

    And Shaun- don’t indulge Judith. The bottom line here is no matter how it’s spun, this is a private matter that can only be addressed one of two ways, legislating away private property rights or public (ratepayer or taxpayer) funds changing the metrics for the church – ie huge fucking subsidy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “So how do you explan the difference betwen the state description of the common law and the definition from Black’s dictionary of law?”

    What has that got to do with God and the Anglican Church.

    “You think that common law is what the state tells you it is?”

    No. Neither do I believe it is what YOU tell me it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Hell will freeze over before an alcoholic philandering heathen liar dictates Church policy.

    You seem unaware of the precedent of the Borgia Papacy.

    Or a bit closer to home for Anglicans, Archbishop William Laud.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    There you go again Shawn – assuming – you actually have no idea so you make it up to suit your scenario.

    No one has claimed ownership to the Church Building, other than the Anglican Church – but many have claimed an interest in what happens to it because of its spiritual connection as an icon of Christchurch. There are many in CHCH who have stated that they feel as if it is ‘their church’ because of that connection.

    The fact is Shawn, until you canvas every ratepayer in Christchurch on the issue, you do not know what the ‘ratepayers’ of CHCH think, and to say otherwise is speaking without evidence.

    However, the financial records of the Council do provide evidence that the ratepayers have contributed financially towards the Cathedral – that point cannot be argued – it is fact. If the Anglican church now wants to sever that relationship and financial agreement – then they need to make some sort of recompense to those that have contributed. Because although you say the area has benefited from the Church being there, and that is not argued – so too has the Anglican Church benefited.

    Perhaps you need to ask to see the financial accounts of the businesses they were running in conjunction with the Church being a tourist attraction, before you understand that the Church was using that building as a commercial enterprise, more so than as a place of worship.

    The only thing the Anglican church has done with this is shot themselves in the foot – they will NEVER, no matter what they build have such a public persona has they have previously held – their ability to ‘spread the word of god’ has been drastically reduced and their ability to at least attempt to reach the masses severely damaged by the decision of someone, who seems unable and unwilling to even try and understand the culture of New Zealand.

    I do not for one minute think the State should intervene to seize the building. I would like to think that the Anglican Church would have enough respect for the spiritual value of the building to do everything within their power to find a solution that allows at least part of the icon to remain as a monument to our heritage, our struggles and to the spiritual connection that so many have had with it. It appears to me, that the church is basically giving all that the ‘finger’ and THAT is not a good look.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. wikiriwhis business (4,016 comments) says:

    “Although Winston should take full benefit of any lightning bolt, I wouldn’t stand closer than, say, twenty feet before the Election … let alone vote for the bastard.”

    Even tho I vote for Winston I had to tick you up for that. Ma joke for the day :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Once again the Anglican congregation concerned is relatively small, about 150 people, who just do not have the resources to rebuild the cathedral. And even if somehow they could raise the millions of dollars involved and fund a complete restoration they would then still have an old church which is hard to light,hard to heat, expensive to maintain and generally unsuitable to the needs of the modern church congregation. Modern churches need a big stage for the worship band, a modern creche, a good sound system etc. The cathedral was built in a different time and different era.

    The cardboard cathedral has been a great success apparently and points the way to the future. The Anglican church has moved on and so should the Members of Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    OK, ShawnLH, I get that you cant explain then discrepancy between the state’s secular description of the common law and the historical theistic description, so you just deny that any misrepresentation exists.

    Given your Wikipedia-style defence of the magic bullet theory it looks like you are arguing from faith, rather than from reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “No one has claimed ownership to the Church Building”

    When non-owners like Anderton insist the Church does this or that, then that IS claiming ownership, even if not stated outright.

    “The fact is Shawn, until you canvas every ratepayer in Christchurch on the issue, you do not know what the ‘ratepayers’ of CHCH think”

    Neither do you.

    “The only thing the Anglican church has done with this is shot themselves in the foot”

    According to you. Are you now claiming to speak for most Chch people? Your arrogance is astounding.

    “the decision of someone, who seems unable and unwilling to even try and understand the culture of New Zealand.”

    You mean the culture of whinging complaint, tall poppy syndrome, telling other people what to do with their property? GOOD. I’m glad she has no time for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Judith the spiritual value of the church building is that it provides a space for Jesus Christ to be worshipped there. If you want to go back to your Anglican roots then I imagine your local Anglican diocese has a number of other churches you could attend. Many Anglican churches have historic iconic buildings where I am sure you would be made welcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Scott

    ‘Twould be better for NZ if these two Members passed rather than moved, on.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    Judith claims to speak for Chch ratepayers. Gets fisked.

    Changes tack and claims to only talking about a few politicians. Gets fisked.

    Changes tack again, back to claiming to speak now for all of Chch.

    Boring.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Scott (1,593 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    1. I don’t live in Christchurch
    2. I stopped having an imaginary friend some years ago.
    3. There is more in the meaning of the word spirituality, than just religion. People’s association with a building such as the Cathedral provides them with a connection to their identity.
    4. If the building was just a place for Jesus Christ to be worshiped – why did they sell T-Shirts etc with pictures of the cathedral on it and so on – there?
    5. I visit many churches and old buildings around NZ, and are always made welcome – even by people who are practicing wiccans!
    6. The spiritual value of something is decided by people’s connection to it – the Anglicans do not have sole jurisdiction on who feels a connection to the Cathedral.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    UT,

    “OK, ShawnLH, I get that you cant explain then discrepancy between the state’s secular description of the common law and the historical theistic description, so you just deny that any misrepresentation exists.”

    I didn’t say anything of the sort. Show me where I said there was no discrepancy? I’m already aware of the Christian basis for common law. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the Anglican Church is a NZ state church.

    “Given your Wikipedia-style defence of the magic bullet theory it looks like you are arguing from faith, rather than from reason.”

    Show me the actual quote you think I made, because, I never made it. Your confusing me with someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (360 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Wow you really are delusional – I don’t even live in ChCh and have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself and certainly not the ratepayers of Christchurch – I’m not surprised you are so religious – your level of basic understanding is severely limited.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Once again Winston wins. Headlines, Hundreds of words, ….exposure. He must laugh his drunk little arse off at how easy it is for him to put himself in the limelight. He knows most people will not bother to read and/or think past the first sentence so he says something that rings a few bells and then when people do read it and call BS, he just goes underground until next time. No explanation, no consequences and heaven forbid no having to explain in any detail what/how/when and why.
    Give him his due, he is a past master at this and it has kept him buried in baubles for decades.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “1. I don’t live in Christchurch”

    What a shock.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “Wow you really are delusional – I don’t even live in ChCh and have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself and certainly not the ratepayers of Christchurch”

    Virtually every post you made claims exactly that. “the Chch ratepayers this…the people of Chch that.”

    Dishonest much?

    If you were speaking only for yourself you would use ‘I’ statements and leave the issue of ratepayers and your notions of Chch peoples connection to the Cathedral out of the discussion.

    You shot yourself in the foot here, now your just panicking and backtracking.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (363 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    Well considering Christchurch is where the building of concern is sited, did you expect the conversation to involve the Dunedin ratepayers? You really are challenged aren’t you!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. OneTrack (3,107 comments) says:

    Re 6. What the Anglicans do have is sole ownership rights of the building that belongs to them.

    Or we could go with Anderton’s and Peter’s fascist model, where “Big State” usurps private property rights “for the good of the community”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Judith-do try and be logically consistent. You said that you were confirmed as an Anglican by Paul Reeves and therefore implying this gave you some credence as to what happens to the Anglican cathedral. But then with the least little testing you fall away and declare you are not an Anglican or even believe in God?
    Do try and make your mind up.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Judith, let’s cut to the chase.

    To summarise: You seem to be saying the Anglican church has a moral responsibility to re-build/allow the cathedral to be re-built.

    How much are they meant to pay of that cost, and how much the ratepayers of Christchurch and the taxpayers of New Zealand?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “OK, ShawnLH, I get that you cant explain then discrepancy between the state’s secular description of the common law and the historical theistic description, so you just deny that any misrepresentation exists.”

    I didn’t say anything of the sort. Show me where I said there was no discrepancy?

    You denied that mispresentation exists when you said: “It hasn’t.”
    Link

    I’m already aware of the Christian basis for common law.

    There isn’t any Christian basis for the common law. The fact that it was adopted by Christians doesn’t make the law itself Christian. The primary source of the common law predates the advent of Christianity.

    “Given your Wikipedia-style defence of the magic bullet theory it looks like you are arguing from faith, rather than from reason.”

    Show me the actual quote you think I made, because, I never made it. Your confusing me with someone else.

    Are you denying that you referred to the video from the History Channel which attempted to duplicate the shot with dummy targets?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    But then with the least little testing you fall away and declare you are not an Anglican or even believe in God?

    Um, not a fair test.

    As Louis XVI once objected when a particularly bad candidate was proposed (and this applies to significant portions of the Anglican clergy today): “No, no, no! The Bishop of Paris should at least BELIEVE in God”.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Scott (1,594 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Being confirmed in an anglican church, according to the certificate I have makes me an Anglican. I gave that information in answer to the statement that ‘people who were not even Anglicans’ – well sorry sweetheart, but I am – have the documentation to prove it – and there is nought on that certificate that says if I no longer believe in god, that I am no longer an Anglican.

    My loss of faith in any God occurred many years later.

    I am not a Christchurch ratepayer, I do not have any say in what happens to it, but I have the right to an opinion – as does anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    The sooner the venal lush Peters disappears, the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    Judith. I AM from Christchurch, and I AM one of the ratepayers, and frankly, this is an issue for US to deal with, not people from OUTSIDE Christchurch. I had assumed, based on your various statements, that you were from Christchurch. Now you finally admit you are not. Keep your nose out of OUR concerns, please. Thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. OneTrack (3,107 comments) says:

    “Peters was “very, very confident” a deal could be reached.”

    A “deal” could be reached? With who – the Anglican church? Or with Mr Cunliffe and Mr Norman to get them to pass a law abrogating the churches ownership rights? The totalitarian is strong in this one, Obi-Wan.

    How much taxpayer funding is Peters talking about actually throwing at restoring the cathedral. Unlimited? And who comes up with any shortfall? The church? How convenient.

    Or are Peters, Cunliffe and Norman simply going the nationalise the cathedral? Well it is an “asset”, isn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    UT,

    “Are you denying that you referred to the video from the History Channel which attempted to duplicate the shot with dummy targets?”

    Yes. Show me the actual quote. I never made any reference to any video.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimbo (354 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Yes, partially correct. I am saying the Anglican Church because of its past relationship with the community of Christchurch, and partly because it too has benefited needs to make more of an effort to acknowledge the significance of the building to those people.

    I do not for one minute think that they should have to foot the bill for an entire reconstruction – if the community also wants that, then it would require a joint financial effort from all sectors. I do think that it would be ‘nice’ (for want of a better word) to have at least part of the Cathedral reconstructed for all the reasons given above and many more.

    I also think it would be in the Churches best interests, and in the spirit of their being, to at least acknowledge and accept that the Cathedral is much more than simply a place of worship … and try to work with other parties to achieve an optimum result for everyone, not just themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    I have the right to an opinion – as does anyone.

    But other than a certificate, the validity of which you have effectively abrogated, no skin whatsoever in the matter.

    You do know there is very little of MERIT left to say when you are reduced to “I have a right to an opinion”?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    UT,

    “Are you denying that you referred to the video from the History Channel which attempted to duplicate the shot with dummy targets?”

    Yes. Show me the actual quote. I never made any reference to any video. SHOW ME THE ACTUAL POST YOU CLAIM I MADE. Or your a liar.

    I wouldn’t engage in a debate about that issue in the first place. I think people wanking on about JFK are retards.

    And you have still failed to answer my question. How is the Anglican Church the state church of NZ? My question on that has only been met with diversionary tactics. I don’t give a damn about your theories about common law. Answer the actual question.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David in Chch (500 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    I beleive DPF isn’t from CHCH either – are you going to tell him the same? Are you going to tell everyone who isn’t from Christchurch, even those of us that have visited it, and purchased the souvenirs etc, that we have no right to an opinion on the subject?

    Are you NEVER ever going to comment on any situation in any part of New Zealand ever again because you live in CHCH?

    Get real, and get a life – I NEVER said I lived in CHCH – I said I believed the DECISION should be made by the rate payers of Chch, because of their financial input, – its not my fault you people see words where they don’t exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “Being confirmed in an anglican church, according to the certificate I have makes me an Anglican.”

    It doesn’t. That is why if a person receives confirmation in the Catholic or Lutheran churches, they do not have to be re-confirmed in the Anglican church. Confirmation is about your baptism into Christ, not a denomination.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    No, no, Judith.

    I didn’t ask you to confirm if the community also wants that, then it would require a joint financial effort from all sectors.

    I asked HOW MUCH do each of the three parties (Church, ratepayers, taxpayers) pay? I’m moving beyond “if” here, suspending judgement for the moment and trying to treat your “opinion” seriously.

    If your “opinion” is to be adopted, that means I as taxpayer will have skin in the game.

    OK.

    How much?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimbo (355 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 1:54 pm

    The statement was that the people arguing were not Anglican’s – I am an Anglican – that is the end of the argument.

    You can twist it all you like Kimbo – but the fact remains – the statement made by that poster was wrong – he did not say ‘not a practicing Anglican or not a Christian, or not a believer in God – he quite simply said – ‘not an Anglican’

    You people really need to get up earlier in the morning and think a little bit more about how you ask your questions – instead of making total ASS’s of yourselves by making assumptions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    ” I said I believed the DECISION should be made by the rate payers of Chch, because of their financial input”

    The ratepayers do not own the Cathedral. How can they make the decision? SOME money being used by the council does not mean the decision thus belongs to ratepayers. There is that ownership issue again, which you claimed not to be saying.

    Your all over the place here Judith, changing your claims every few minutes, saying one thing one moment and one thing the next. About the only consistency is your bigotry towards those Anglicans who want to make the decision for themselves without being lectured by self-serving politicians or people who don’t even live here.

    Mind your own business.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimbo (356 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    That entirely depends on what agreement, design, access and on-going use of said building or partial building is decided upon, doesn’t it? And that is something for the representatives for each of those three sectors to decide after consultation with the parties concerned. Can’t make that sort of decision without knowing what the proposal is.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (369 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    There you go again making assumptions Shawn – did I specify which particular decision the ratepayers should make? You automatically jumped in and decided it must be about rebuilding the church. I was in fact referring to the decision of whether the ratepayers supported the idea of the church being rebuilt and were prepared to negotiate with the church, if the church wanted that. But hey – you be as bigger ‘ASS’ as you like – you’re doing well so far.

    It is your understanding that is all over the place, you read what people say and make assumptions about what it means, and then when you find out those assumptions are wrong, you blame the messenger for your lack of understanding and reading what you want into their statements that isn’t there – as I said, you’re an ASS

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    The Anglican Church gave up its property rights when its vicars started preaching the virtues of theft; telling us that the state should take more workers’ money to “redistribute” at the vicars see fit.

    Confiscate it and keep coal in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “Given your Wikipedia-style defence of the magic bullet theory it looks like you are arguing from faith, rather than from reason.”

    Show me the actual quote you think I made, because, I never made it. Your confusing me with someone else.

    You are correct, the post was from stephieboy. Sorry for tarring you with the Wikipedia brush.

    I’ll amend my argument to: “Given your inability to explain the impossibility of the magic bullet theory, it looks like you are arguing from faith, rather than from reason. Don’t forget that it was you who brought the JFK issue up, not me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Rowan (2,396 comments) says:

    Agree with Shawn and DPF, there has been far to many do gooders including Anderton, Winston, various rate payers and heritage zealots demanding that the church restore the munted Cathedral.
    How many of our non canterbury KB commentators have actually been to Christchurch and seen the ruined cathedral. It is munted and its heritage status is given far to much importance. 3 Courts have now ruled it is the property of the church and that they and not Jim, Winston and the ratepayers can decide whether to repair or demolish it. Time to bring in the diggers! hopefully the next court ruling will include costs awarded against Anderton et al for wasting their time.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    That entirely depends on what agreement, design, access and on-going use of said building or partial building is decided upon, doesn’t it?

    No. “Design” has already been determined. It is a restoration.

    No one other than the church has rights to determine “access and on-going use”. That is what we call property rights – and given the very nature of a church, it is something that their existing covenants would likely enshrine.

    So that leaves the church to throw in its insurance money. However, don’t forget they would (rightly) expect a grant from council and government for the additional running and future maintenance costs they would have avoided if they had gone for the cardboard option.

    That leaves rate payers and tax payers to pay the balance.

    How much is that?

    And by what mechanism do the ratepayers and me as tax payer get to have my say? By voting for Jim Anderton? Oh, hold on – he isn’t even running for any office.

    I look forward to your answers…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    So Judith says ratepayers should be allowed a chance to decide if they want the cathedral, and whatever they decide will be right…

    …but the Anglican church’s decision, made by its duly-appointed leadership and even though its name is on the title-deed, is WRONG.

    How does that work?!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t engage in a debate about that issue in the first place. I think people wanking on about JFK are retards.

    So why would you bring the issue to the debate in the first place?

    And you have still failed to answer my question.

    No, you haven’t asked this question before.

    How is the Anglican Church the state church of NZ?

    Reposted from my 10:29: Technically the state is Anglican since the head of state is “supreme governor” of the Anglican Church.

    To elaborate, religion isn’t something that you can separate from state policy because of the fundamental way in which religion shapes the way that people discern meaning from the events around them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimbo (358 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    That is not what I said – please show me where I have said the ratepayers should decide if the church should be rebuilt? The decision I was referring to was they should decide whether they want to negotiate with the church over some sort of reconstruction or not – or whether they accept that it is the churches decision and leave it at that.

    Once such a decision is made then it ends everyone’s arguments, including Peter’s and Anderton. The ratepayers of CHCH because of their past financial arrangement, IMO are the only ones that have the right to decide whether there is anything to try and discuss with the church.

    The rest of us are however, entitled to our opinion – even if Scott would like CHCH to be run independently from the rest of the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “Given your inability to explain the impossibility of the magic bullet theory, it looks like you are arguing from faith, rather than from reason.”

    You have never fired a rifle or been a hunter, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    Judith is changing her argument again.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Judith, I am not an Anglican but I am a Christian. Having a certificate of confirmation into the Anglican Church is all very well but it has no value if the person has no faith. People with a certificate won’t get into heaven. Believers go to heaven. Believers in Jesus Christ, for there is no other name under heaven by which men (and women) may be saved.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. lolitasbrother (698 comments) says:

    Any person who lives in this town , and goes for a walk around the square, and inside four avenues will realise ,
    that the Cathedral is gone forever.
    Further down on Barbadoes street the Basilica is also gone forever.

    Costs of rebuild Christchurch estimated at $NZ 40 billion and rising . Thats $10,000 for every man woman and child.
    John Key did not declare National disaster where the costs would be socialised and spread.
    He just left us in the care of Gerry. Now we have no bloody insurance, and EQC is worthless, maybe it Farrar that should
    shut the fuck up on this occasion
    So if people don’t like NZ First want to make capital where NZ Govt fails so be it,

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    Peters think parties will agree to a law change stealing the cathedral off the church.

    It wouldn’t be much of a law change, but it seems unlikely anyone is going to take his claim seriously. Isn’t it obviously a cheap piece of populism Peters hopes gets him into power and easily forgotten there after?

    The Anglican church stopped having the right to 100% say on what happens to the Cathedral the day they were happy to accept rate payer money towards its up keep in my opinion.

    I think this is perfectly logical, and I’m surprised that people who otherwise insist that harsh pragmatic economics should govern peoples decisions easily forget some peoples investment when it pleases them.

    Personally I don’t think the Christchurch Cathedral is worth the cost of rebuilding, and that it is better should a new one be built that it reflects the time of it’s construction.

    Though I think the best thing would be for Christchurch to buy the land back and build a civic centre integrated with the square for everyone’s use in Christchurch and leave issues concerning the Anglican Church out of the, literally, public square.

    Ignore the religious connotations, it is a symbol of heritage, community and survival – it’s resurrection would be a symbol of conquering adversity for many – and perhaps even a score against the scorn of mother nature.

    One cannot ignore religion when others insist on it’s presence, but beside that rebuilding a collapsed structure is not a symbol of survival – it could be an act of honouring the past but it may just as well be an act of retreat into the past.

    Christchurch is a place where people live now, not just where they once lived and while it pains me that many attractive and pleasant neo-Gothic stone buildings that were aesthetically pleasurable have been lost and I fear will be replaced by cheap unimaginative works of mediocre architects it is not proper that others be compelled to be frozen by what we remember pleasantly of the past.

    My fears should not be pressed onto others with the responsibility of moving forward and if their choices displease me then they’re going to be in good company with many other people I have to suffer to live among.

    Accepting help for upkeep does not mean that you have rescinded ownership or property rights.

    Apart from the possibility of a contractual agreement (I don’t know any details of such in this matter) this isn’t true. Any financial contribution can (though might not) create duties in common law. Surprisingly for some the law often does include moral responsibilities in it’s application.

    So while any given claim may fail people who plead and receive aid from others shouldn’t be sanguine about an ability to fob off responsibilities by possibly implied contracts.

    Technically the state is Anglican since the head of state is “supreme governor” of the Anglican Church.

    Is the State also an elderly woman because it’s Queen is? Not all properties describing Elizabeth are also properties describing those States which acknowledge her as their head. She can be many things irrelevant to the nature of the State.

    To claim the UK, or NZ, has a state religion you will have to find it in their constitutions.

    The study of which leads to very interesting debates for as we all know neither nation has a single written constitution or even one that can be found in it’s entirety written in any sum of books. Much of it is found in practice and tradition.

    Which are malleable and change form over time, and we see our conventions alter as they do.

    An observable consequence (and cause) of which is the substantially different cultures that exist in the UK and NZ now.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. lolitasbrother (698 comments) says:

    Any person who lives in this town , and goes for a walk around the square, and inside four avenues will realise ,
    that the Cathedral is gone forever.
    Further down on Barbadoes street the Basilica is also gone forever.

    Costs of rebuild Christchurch estimated at $NZ 40 billion and rising . Thats $10,000 for every man woman and child.
    Or if you like Mr Farrar $35,000 for every taxpayer
    John Key did not declare National disaster where the costs would be socialised and spread, as he should have .
    He just left us in the care of Gerry. Now we have no bloody insurance, and EQC is worthless,
    maybe it is Farrar that should shut the fuck up on this occasion
    So if people in the North Island don’t like NZ First or others looking at the gaps left by Government, too bad,
    In fact the NZ Govt actually deserves to be thrashed here.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    About the only consistency is your bigotry towards those Anglicans who want to make the decision for themselves without being lectured by self-serving politicians or people who don’t even live here.

    Funny. I had the same feeling about the sanctimonious Paul Reeves (the WORST Governor General in living memory) when he led that ranting rabble called the Hikoi of Hope to lecture to the steps of Parliament to harangue OUR elected government in the late 1990s.

    Judith’s case may not be logical, nor having any basis in law (common or otherwise!). But then neither does the Anglican Church’s position with the “cathedral”/spiritual focal point for Christchurch – which no matter how you cut is what a cathedral is MEANT to be.

    I’ve been part of an Anglican church that used to take council funds to repair the historical white elephant that housed the congregation. Time to get the bulldozers out, sell and vacate rather than that. But then stand by to hear a whole army of illogical harpies and people far crazier than Judith wail in a synod when you propose that!

    Some advice for Anglicans in future: DON’T take public funds for your buildings and market them as places of community focus. You may not share legal ownership with the heathens around about, but they do, quite rightly as Judith has maladroitly put it, feel they have a stake, and a say.

    At least they will be a bit wiser next time someone comes around rattling the begging bowl…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimbo

    Of course the Anglican church has property rights, and legally they can do as they damn well like – which appears to be the stance they have taken and quite literally flicked the finger at anyone that believes otherwise.

    That is their decision to make – but I question how is that gel with their past relationship, including financial assistance from the other sectors of the community, and also with the nature of their religious purpose given the teachings of Christianity and the role of compassion and understanding?

    If they wish to build a building that is no longer regarded as an icon, and therefore does not bring tourists etc to the area, should the council, government and past contributors continue to financially support the church – my opinion is no – the sole justification for such contributions in the past – and I add, that were given as reasons by the church for needing financial support, was due to its popularity and the fact they bought important tourist money to the area.

    Whilst as I don’t pay rates in the area I have no say on further financial support from the Council, I am a tax payer – and think that if the Church insists on taking the ‘we have property rights and f you stance’ then they are on their own and shouldn’t get any government support unless it is proven that their new building is adopted as an icon and brings the same interest as the past building did.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    That is not what I said – please show me where I have said the ratepayers should decide if the church should be rebuilt? The decision I was referring to was they should decide whether they want to negotiate with the church over some sort of reconstruction or not – or whether they accept that it is the churches decision and leave it at that.

    But why do they get to have a say over whether to negotiate…when the church has made a decision?

    There is nothing to negotiate.

    Or are you saying the church should stay in limbo on their re-building plans until someone decides if they are going to approach them with a building partnership offer?

    If so, how long, given the inefficiencies of local and central government should the congregation wait, when, like most Chch residents they want to move on asap – as evidenced by the acceptance of plans for a cardboard cathedral?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Technically the state is Anglican since the head of state is “supreme governor” of the Anglican Church.

    It is no such thing. The Queen of New Zealand is not the supreme governor of the Anglican Church.

    Therein lies your fallacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimbo (359 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Well said and I do agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Is the State also an elderly woman because it’s Queen is?

    Of course not. The state doesn’t have that ability.

    But it does, as a collective, have the ability to hold religious beliefs because its members do.

    Not all properties describing Elizabeth are also properties describing those States which acknowledge her as their head. She can be many things irrelevant to the nature of the State.

    Religion is not one of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Of course the Anglican church has property rights, and legally they can do as they damn well like – which appears to be the stance they have taken and quite literally flicked the finger at anyone that believes otherwise.

    That is their decision to make – but I question how is that gel with their past relationship, including financial assistance from the other sectors of the community, and also with the nature of their religious purpose given the teachings of Christianity and the role of compassion and understanding?

    Fair enough. That is a valid point.

    But if you were a Presbyterian you would know you can’t trust the episcopalian system. Underneath the dog collars and polite non-confrontational language they are just dictators in an age of democracy. They prefer to get a consensus if they can, but while the British Monarchy has been reformed/given up their powers the last 300 years, Anglican bishops have not.

    I well remember a vicar’s warden in an Anglican Church I belonged to once blurting out in regards to a decision of the diocesan office he didn’t like, “They can’t do that – we are a democracy!”. Er, no. Bad luck, chum. It pays to read the fine print!

    Remember it next time the local clergy comes knocking on your Council’s door. This is a quid without a pro quo!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The Queen of New Zealand is not the supreme governor of the Anglican Church.

    The Sovereign holds the title ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’.
    http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx

    The name “Anglican” means “of England”…
    http://anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “But if you were a Presbyterian you would know you can’t trust the episcopalian system. Underneath the dog collars and polite non-confrontational language they are just dictators in an age of democracy. ”

    That, to put it mildly, is an major overstatement. Neither Bishops nor priests have absolute authority. There are canon law limitations on authority, and the AC does have democratic mechanisms for the election of leaders.

    Just to be clear for UT’s sake, I am talking about the actual leaders of the Church, Bishops, not UT’s fantasies concerning the role of the Queen.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. xy (187 comments) says:

    I live in Christchurch, I attended the school for the cathedral choir, I spent a bunch of time in the cathedral. As a secular lefty who believes in property rights, this is a weird weird thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    That, to put it mildly, is an major overstatement. Neither Bishops nor priests have absolute authority. There are canon law limitations on authority, and the AC does have democratic mechanisms for the election of leaders.

    Nah – I still favour the reaction of the Scots when foolish Charles I tried to impose bishops on them – they rebelled, and started a Civil war that ultimately saw him go to the block.

    Even with the checks and balances you mention, far too much power for one Christian to have over others.

    Mind you, better a competent bishop than an incompetent session and presbytery :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Fentex (978 comments) says:
    Not all properties describing Elizabeth are also properties describing those States which acknowledge her as their head. She can be many things irrelevant to the nature of the State.

    Religion is not one of them.

    An arbitrary choice I counter thus; Religion has no place in governance nor law, regardless of any history when some thought it did.

    Though you haven’t been explicit in your claims I suspect you think religion has a place in governance and law. Cutting to the heart (and conclusion) of any arguments over the matter – I don’t. I don’t care what past examples may be found, I choose now and for evermore that it should not and if debate on the issue devolves to violence I’ll be happy to stand my ground on the matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    In the wake of the Chch earthquake, the Anglican Church provided hundreds of volunteers to help, and have continued to do so. My own parish provided many volunteers who spent weeks door knocking on hundreds of homes in our one area alone to check on peoples housing and repair needs, and to find out how people are coping. Not to mention the amount of charity to the poor and needy we do normally. This is not to blow our own horn, but to point out that the idea that because some upkeep on the Cathedral was provided, we are some how in debt and beholden to the city, is simply not true.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    A monumentally stupid, faux-European pastiche before the earthquake.

    Not it’s a ruin of a monumentally stupid, faux-European pastiche. What is it with these people? It should never have been built in the first place, and it’s down to sheer luck it didn’t kill anyone.

    Build something appropriate.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    This is not to blow our own horn, but to point out that the idea that because some upkeep on the Cathedral was provided, we are some how in debt and beholden to the city, is simply not true.

    A bit of a simplification.

    The “core business” of the church is to do good.

    It is NOT the core business of the government (local or central) to support the maintenance of private buildings, religious or otherwise.

    Don’t go to them trying to distract them from their core role, and you wont have this confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    Kimbo, I agree that it was a mistake, and I agree with you about the core functions of government and Church. My point is that it does not justify the claims being made by Anderton or Peters.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. TM (99 comments) says:

    This is a weird thread. As I can see there are two choices:
    1. compulsory acquisition of the catherdral site, pay compensation to the Anglican Church at fair market value, and the ratepayers/taxpayers fund the massive cost of the rebuild.
    2. leave it to the Anglian Church to decide and fund

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    An arbitrary choice

    No, it is based in reason.

    I counter thus; Religion has no place in governance nor law, regardless of any history when some thought it did.

    Law and true governance are based on reason and matters of fact. Matters of fact can be of a religious nature as well as a secular nature.
    The position that no religious idea can be factual is an atheistic one. The early commentators, called “sources of the law”, make it clear that deity has a role in law, for example regarding the natural rights of the people.

    Though you haven’t been explicit in your claims I suspect you think religion has a place in governance and law.

    Only when that religion is in agreement with fact and reason. The state’s secular expression of the common the law is a perversion.

    pervert (v.) c.1300 (transitive), “to turn someone aside from a right religious belief to a false or erroneous one,” from Old French pervertir “pervert, undo, destroy” (12c.) and directly from Latin pervertere “overthrow, overturn,” figuratively “to corrupt, subvert, abuse,” literally “turn the wrong way, turn about,” from per- “away” (see per) + vertere “to turn” (see versus).

    Cutting to the heart (and conclusion) of any arguments over the matter – I don’t. I don’t care what past examples may be found, I choose now and for evermore that it should not and if debate on the issue devolves to violence I’ll be happy to stand my ground on the matter.

    Your position on the matter isn’t important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    TH, ratepayers have assisted the church, and the congregation has assisted the wider community. Who gets to decide if the balance is in favour of the church or the city?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (376 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    According to my friends and relations who live in Christchurch, what you describe was done by many people, and not just Anglicans – and most of those people had not received a cent for the up keep of their particular ‘businesses’ or club rooms or tracks, premises or other interests etc. They offered assistance because that is what normal and caring people do in such times. I’m appalled that you somehow equate the offering of assistance during the tragedy as some sort of ‘pay back’.

    You seem to miss the point that it was the Anglican Church itself that defined the value of the building to the community when it sought financial assistance for its upkeep. By promoting the building as of value to the community and the businesses of Christchurch, and indeed all of New Zealand (their submission) as something that superseded their usage and purpose for the building – they set the value – which now they have decided to withdraw and insist it is only of ‘value’ to them as a place of worship and they can do that in a cardboard box if necessary. They set the terms, they defined it – and now you get annoyed with anyone that agrees with the definition of it that the Anglican church, themselves provided.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. peterwn (3,273 comments) says:

    Peter – I doubt your ancestors arrived in one of the ‘first four ships’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Peters headline hunting in an attempt to prove he’s still relevant. Promises are cheap especially when he knows it ain’t going to happen. If he or anyone thinks that our next Government will be determined on the basis of a commitment to rebuild a Cathedral then God help us …. joke …. because that’s what that relic from the past is.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    The Sovereign holds the title ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’.

    You are referring to the Queen of England. The Queen of England no longer has any role in New Zealand. Our (current) Sovereign is the Queen of New Zealand.

    The distinction is real and yet seems lost on you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Michael (909 comments) says:

    A history lesson. At 12.51pm on 22nd February 2011 a large earthquake killed many Cantabrians and wrecked many historic buildings, including the Anglican Cathedral in Cathedral Square. So in a complete denial of history, some people want to put it back as it was before. If this attitude had been in place in Hawkes Bay in the 1930s then we wouldn’t have the historic Art Noveau and Art Deco architecture in Napier and Hastings.

    The loss of the Cathedral (and many other buildings) is now part of the heritage of Christchurch and denying this is to defy the way history means change happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Fentex, who are you to decide whether religion has a place in law and governance? Who died and made you king?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Fentex (978 comments) says:
    [I, Fentex, wrote of regarding picking religion as an important property of a monarch] An arbitrary choice

    No, it is based in reason.

    I don’t believe this. Religion only touches reason when it’s considered as part of peoples behaviour and other foibles, as a concept to be applied outside of personal prejudice and preference it has no contact with reason at all.

    Law and true governance are based on reason and matters of fact

    No they’re not. They are based on whatever agreements people make with their communities. Once upon a time we mostly agreed that churches had a place, those who didn’t being overwhelmed by the force of those who did. Today enough of us exclude churches that we are not overwhelmed.

    Enough of us agree that laws are just by being enacted by elected representatives that we give them authority. It is more a decision hard won by observing the harm and inadequacy done by less adaptive methods of governance (much influenced by the horror of the Hundred Years War) than by careful reasoning.

    The position that no religious idea can be factual is an atheistic one. The early commentators, called “sources of the law”, make it clear that deity has a role in law, for example regarding the natural rights of the people.

    The heart of our disagreement. This is a explicit claim for religious authority. As that is irrational I do not expect to dissuade you from it. I will continue to inform you that should you, and others sharing the opinion, attempt to force it on me I will fight vigorously to deny you.

    Your position on the matter isn’t important.

    That quote illustrates the despicable nature of religious claims for privilege and authority.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You are referring to the Queen of England. The Queen of England no longer has any role in New Zealand. Our (current) Sovereign is the Queen of New Zealand.

    The distinction is real and yet seems lost on you.

    OK, Fentex, what do you think the distinction is between the Queen of England and the Queen of New Zealand, when they are both titles for the same individual?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “The position that no religious idea can be factual is an atheistic one. The early commentators, called “sources of the law”, make it clear that deity has a role in law, for example regarding the natural rights of the people.”

    The heart of our disagreement. This is a explicit claim for religious authority.

    No it isn’t. You are conflating arbitrary religious belief with religious belief that has been recognised in law since the time of King Alfred the Great. The religion of the common law is very limited, and concerns making oath, natural rights, and the status of deity within law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Monty (978 comments) says:

    What most people have not grasped is the the very obvious. Christchurch and in particular the good people of the Anglican Church community have a very unique opportunity.

    The Christchurch Anglican cathedral ( and indeed their catholic cousins) built their church based on what a church is like in Europe and how churches have been built through Europe for over 1000 years. The format and materials are basically identical to the hundreds or even thousands of churches built across Europe, and also the USA.

    I was involved in building a church here in Wellington about ten years ago. I therefore speak with a bit more experience that arses like Winston and that prick Jim Anderton.

    The opportunity the good people of the Anglican community have is to break the traditions and widen their thinking to build a church structure that is leading edge, different, and reflects how people now hold and maintain their faith, while doing something unique to the New Zealand experience. Arses like Winston and Anderton are stuck with their thinking bound by what they perceive as popularist and traditional. I ask why they are limiting their thinking? Isn’t this the opportunity to do something great, and possibly lead the world and their faith by example?

    The old church that Christchurch had are really dime a dozen through Europe. How boring and predictable to build the same again. Nothing special about that. Wouldn’t it be so much better to build a new church which the European visitor would want to come and see.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    My point is that it does not justify the claims being made by Anderton or Peters.

    As a general rule, I usually find there is NOTHING to EVER justify practically ANY claim made by Anderton and Peters.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    Fentex, what do you think the distinction is between the Queen of England and the Queen of New Zealand, when they are both titles for the same individual?

    I find no surprise in individuals having multiple titles, roles and responsibilities.

    It is not unusual, it is not unusual for conflict to exist between two such things. I may own a business, be a trustee, be elected to government and do all three things separately but occasionally find them in conflict with each other and be compelled to recuse myself from a decision.

    Some people have multiple citizenships. I grew up with a friend who had a New Zealand passport by virtue of being born here, a British passport by virtue of his paternal Grandparents nationality, a Dutch passport by virtue of his mothers nationality and a Canadian passport by virtue of his fathers. As good an example as I can think of of someone who can claim to fall into one of many categories that at times may conflict, overlap and exclude each other with considerable differences in expectations, rights and responsibilities that change as contexts do.

    I have no problem comprehending Elizabeth Windsor as wearing two different hats that entail different responsibilities, though because those responsibilities can conflict and her connection to NZ growing ever more tenuous I think we ought severe the relationship on her passing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    The Anglican Church is not the state church of NZ, except i

    WRONG

    Your HEAD OF STATE

    IS

    The Head of the ANglican Church

    and she is a Woman

    MAYBE TO COMPARE

    what is best

    leave NZ and Go spend some time in a country

    DICTATED to by any other religion that refuses to give Woman any rights at all

    LIKE IT OR NOT

    The CHRISTCHURCH Cathedral is a SYMBOL
    of
    NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

    What ever is decided

    IT NEEDS TO BE GOT ON WITH

    The INTENTIONAL DELAYS and bickering
    are a NATIONAL DISGRACE

    Has the GVT Offered them money? Yet Assistance?

    I am happy with what Anglicans decide but as it is an institution
    of National importance

    IT SHOULD BE GIVEN GVT MONEY

    It was the centre of an amasing city

    until the issue is addressed christchurch is still in ruins

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Fentex (978 comments) says:
    The heart of our disagreement. This is a explicit claim for religious authority.

    No it isn’t. You are conflating arbitrary religious belief with religious belief that has been recognised in law since the time of King Alfred the Great

    Oh yes it is. And your distinction is without a difference to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Does any one have any clue what UglyTruth’s point/big idea is?

    Does UglyTruth?

    (rhetorical questions, although I KNOW I will live to regret asking…)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    Interesting to read comments from pretenders and those who just like to see their name in print. I guess if you have not lived through the 10,000 plus quakes you can always read about them and become an armchair critic / expert.

    One thing that is very obvious is the petty vicious attacks from the left wing who appear to be corresponding here in larger numbers than usual. I guess they enjoy the relaxed freedom on this blog to express their opinions. This is a contrast to those with right leaning views receiving a ban from the standard. Its a pity comrade Prentice does not allow same the freedom of speech but then again he has serious personal problems and is very immature.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. edhunter (547 comments) says:

    FFS lets just give the site to the muzzies let them build a mega mosque, rename Christchurch Mecca City, install Sharia Law problem solved. Eliminates all dissension through the Qadi being judge, jury & executioner.
    And it encourages immigration & investment of the kind the gweens & labour are so keen on.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    what do you think the distinction is between the Queen of England and the Queen of New Zealand

    The authority she holds in her role as Queen of England does not extend to NZ. Just as her role as Queen of New Zealand does not imbue her with any authority in England.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    John Key can get his mates into and out of Christchurch
    on day one in 14 hours

    with not 4 phone calls

    but

    ONE PHONE CALL

    Shame the same attention can’t be given to a Cathedral that is a National Shrine and Symbol
    but as we know it’s Key and his mates

    THAT COME FIRST

    Not the needs of New Zealanders

    That what ever NEEDS TO BE DONE

    HAS NOT EVEN STARTED

    IS NOW

    A NATIONAL DISGRACE

    A SOURCE OF EMBARRASSMENT

    CRINGE MATERIAL

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Rebuild it refurbish or what ever

    OR CHANGE THE NAME FROM

    “CHRIST” “C H U R C H”

    TO

    “HEATHEN HOVEL”

    “HEATHEN HOVEL”

    is NZ’s future but I mean more important things

    COME FIRST EH

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The authority she holds in her role as Queen of England does not extend to NZ. Just as her role as Queen of New Zealand does not imbue her with any authority in England.

    So what? That is irrelevant to the issue of the religion of the state.

    The point is that while the religion of the state is Anglican, the state refers to a perverted secular version of the common law.

    The common law, which is a body of law built up from decisions made in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand.
    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-new-zealand-legal-system

    lex terre: The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

    pervert (v.) c.1300 (transitive), “to turn someone aside from a right religious belief to a false or erroneous one,” from Old French pervertir “pervert, undo, destroy” (12c.) and directly from Latin pervertere “overthrow, overturn,” figuratively “to corrupt, subvert, abuse,” literally “turn the wrong way, turn about,” from per- “away” (see per) + vertere “to turn” (see versus).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    And your distinction is without a difference to me.

    The distinction is the difference between a delusion and a fact which is central to the science of ethics.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    So what? That is irrelevant to the issue of the religion of the state.

    It is wholly relevant. It was your claim that the Anglican church is effectively NZ’s State church because our Sovereign is the supreme governor of that church.

    But our Sovereign is not the supreme governor of the church. Our Sovereign is not the Queen of England. She is the Queen of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    NZ is a secular state with no state religion never has had a state religion and never will.
    Your claims to the contra are without any support ut .

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    A desperate ploy by a desperate alcohol soaked old fool. Mind you, this type of shit is only going to keep coming from him the closer we get to the election.

    I should not tempt fate but if the stupid old git really wanted to ensure his 5% then all he has to do is promise that he will make the free to air coverage of all All Black tests a non negotiable when it comes to coalition discussions.

    Of course he does not have to deliver on it, the usual “well these things are complex” along with his other well practiced lie “Check the tape sunshine, I did not say that at all” will see our gutless buck toothed media run a mile from the prospect of a confrontation with Peters.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    The thing is this – CH-CH’s public square -for the most part- surrounds the Anglican Cathedral.

    And human relativism makes it so, that nothing is in the public square. No values no nothing. Just meaningless ‘relativism’.

    So while the Anglicans remain with their land and construct a place of Worship upon it – Religion will therefor ALWAYS remain WITHIN CH-CH’s public square.

    Religion 1 —— Poorly Educated KB posters 0

    God is Merciful. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    No harry if the church rebuilds the stupid thing it will not be in the square it’s beside it and a church isn’t a public place. At present rates of decline in godwacking there might be a church there in fifty years there just will not be any idiots left who belive such rubbish.

    secularism 1 godnuts …who cares..rapidly disapairing primeval rubbish from the ignorant past.

    The LORD is a jealous and vengeful God; the LORD is vengeful and strong in wrath. The
    LORD is vengeful against his foes; he rages against his enemies.
    Seems you havent even read your bible.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    Fentex, who are you to decide whether religion has a place in law and governance? Who died and made you king?

    Quite a few people died in conflicts that, if not explicitly asking, begged, the question of who should govern and from where authority to do derives. Enough that a benefit of the Enlightenment (named for, among other reasons, this very idea as well) was a realisation that no matter what individuals believe about the world and nature authority to govern is granted by the governed.

    We live with the benefits of that realisation and when I dismiss the suggestion of replacing it with theft of authority under cover of childish superstition I am not asserting authority over anyone but only that I, and each of us in representative democracies, already have for ourselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Fentex I think you will find that most Christians place God’s law above man’s law as the Bible clearly states we should obey man’s law.
    That’s not to say all of man’s laws are rightous[gay marriage for example] but gay marriage is not compulsary. And practising God’s Law of ‘Christian mission’ is also a Law of compassion – which as far as I understand is still legal. And I think it always will be legal as you can’t outlaw compassion. Hence, if gays for example are sick and troubled, then ‘missionary work with gays’ will always remain legal.

    I can’t ever see ‘hate speech’ becoming unlawful as it can’t really be defined now can it? Some, as I’ve just shown above is simply ‘perceived’ hate by the gays.

    It always goes back to the two sphere thing. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Griff#

    “….a church isn’t a public place….”

    You’ll find that it is essentually a public place as ‘all are welcome’. It becomes a private place when you don’t obey the customs and doctrine. Then the police are called.

    The Orthodox Russian Churches and ‘Pussy Riot’ are a case in point.

    “…..At present rates of decline in godwacking….”

    At present rates of increased man wacking & child wacking – then the likelyhood that more Christians like Koreans ect will come to NZ to stop the decline of the population.

    “…..Seems you havent even read your bible…..”

    The Rise and Fall of Nations is in Revelations. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    If Winston really is ‘wanting to steal’ the Cathedral off the Anglican Church where is he going to hide it? Maybe Anderton is lined up to be the get away driver and he has an orchard somewhere with very high peach trees.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    I can’t ever see ‘hate speech’ becoming unlawful as it can’t really be defined now can it?

    I don’t understand where the topic of hate speech came from among these comments but on the subject the UK has legislated against free speech with laws that rest on complainant’s assertions that others speech offends them. Such assertion apparently being where they expect to find the definition.

    It is a ridiculous law that pretends to proscribe offending people which, apart from a nonsensical ambition probably envisioned as keeping a social status quo, only creates fertile ground to enhance conflict between people who ought learn to live together with their disagreements rather than battle in courts over hurt feelings.

    I am consistently astounded by the ignorance opponents of free speech must live in.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    The stupid old twat has topped the church bullshit
    New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has made buying back the energy companies a bottom line in any coalition deal.

    Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/NZ-Firsts-future-coalition-deal-unknown/tabid/1607/articleID/336047/Default.aspx#ixzz2w1NcEC4K

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    SHUT UP AND REBUILD YOUR CHURCH

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    I suggest you write to him griff informing him that he must have his election policies approved by you in advance – that will make things a lot easier and you will have a lot less to report to Moscow.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    gee nosy thanks for the advice.
    Not that someone with your record has any authority on life,…… quite the opposite in fact.
    So I will henceforth ignore your little campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    It must be so hard for you griff, but don’t give up.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. asterisk.4 (13 comments) says:

    http://kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/02/so_if_you_are_a_novelist_youre_exempt_from_the_public_works_act.html

    I suppose you’ll argue this case differs because a cathedral is not a road or a power pylon, but then you’d be imagining the Act as you’d like it to be instead of as it is.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0035/latest/DLM45433.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. doggone7 (805 comments) says:

    Just bullshit grandstanding Winston. Bullshit grandstanding by Winston bad. Bullshit grandstanding by John Key good. Bullshit flagstanding by John Key good.Silly boy Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    I suppose you’ll argue this case differs because a cathedral is not a road or a power pylon

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/02/so_if_you_are_a_novelist_youre_exempt_from_the_public_works_act.html

    It is an interesting comparison – anger that someone should think themselves exempt from compulsory acquiring of their property contrasted with anger from the same source that it should be suggested anyones property should be compulsorily acquired.

    A person could be forgiven for thinking this is evidence of hypocrisy and that the only relevant consideration to the angered party is who is on which side of the arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Winston the egotistic tosser, devoid of fiscal responsibility. He must be worried about baubles.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ griffith (105 comments) says:
    March 15th, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    With all due respect griffith, I believe this particular church made itself a public space when the parish leaders proceeded to cash in on its popularity, and turn it into a tourist attraction, and requesting public money to keep it maintained on that basis. I accept that other churches that have not relied so much on the tax payer and rate payers for assistance have the right to the ‘privacy’ claim, but not this one.

    As I stated before, the Anglican diocese defined their Church as being of value to all New Zealanders, business owners, general public, citizens of CHCH etc, as a tourist attraction that encouraged tourism. They further defined the terms of its ‘use’ by using it as profit making tourist business.

    They set the standard, and now in my opinion have a moral obligation to stick to the definition they were happy to impliment to serve their own needs.

    I have absolutely no idea whether the church can be practically rebuilt, partially rebuilt, or whatever, but what does piss me off in great quantities is the manner in which the Anglican diocese has played this – because of their previous definition and willingness to ask and accept financial assistance they have an obligation to involve at least the people of Christchurch in coming to a conclusion, that will never suit anyone, but will at least allow them to acknowledge what that church meant to them, and allow them to move forward.

    IMO the arrogance of the Bishop and the diocese is a shocking example of what they are meant to stand for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    “Public space” is a completely meaningless term.

    The point is that the church at all times remains private property, like any bar, stadium or brothel.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ wat dabney (3,363 comments) says:
    March 16th, 2014 at 8:23 am

    That is right Wat, and legally the church is owned by the Anglican Church – however, IMO they have a moral obligation because of the way they defined their building (when it suited them) to at least be seen to consult and take note of what others want.

    (and of course financial concerns, but from what I’ve seen, there are others willing to contribute if a solution can be sought that allows some kind of recognition of the old building) I have no idea what can be achieved, or is even wanted as no one has actually surveyed to find out – but the church has done itself a great deal of harm and swayed from their intended purpose by not bothering to even consult with the community at large on this. So much for Christianity – the example they have set is ‘ask and receive – but don’t give back’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. OneTrack (3,107 comments) says:

    “at least be seen to consult and take note of what others want.”

    They did. They listened to the feedback and decided against restoration.

    “but from what I’ve seen, there are others willing to contribute if a solution can be sought that allows some kind of recognition of the old building)”

    I think the noisemakers want the building rebuilt exactly as it was before, ready for the next earthquake. The church has their own estimate of a hundred million or so to full restore. The “donations” dont come anywhere near that. So because a few people donated $5 a few years ago, that means the church has to come up with an extra 50 million to do a full restore?

    Obviously you will say others have given much cheaper quotes for doing the work. The problem is they dont have any skin in the game and you wont see them for dust when the project starts overrunning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. tvb (4,422 comments) says:

    To try and restore this piece of gothic pastiche is prohibitively expensive especially to bring it up to earthquake standards. It is first and foremost an Anglican church owned by the Anglican church. It is also a major iconic Christchurch building. I do find it offensive that Catholic Jim Anderton should try and force a rebuild on the church when there is not the money to do it. Winston spots a political opportunity, it there no limit to that man’s political opportunism.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    I find that it has got to a “Debate” disgusting

    That the long suffering people of “Christ CHURCH”

    Do not have a church restored or rebuilt is typical of the

    priorities of New Zealand and the NZ government

    All religions who accept TAX FREE STATUS AS RELIGIONS

    Need WHAT THEY DO AND DON’T DO

    open to the scrutiny of the TAX PAYERS OF NZ

    As a TAX FREE RELIGION you are meant to administer to the
    spiritual needs of THE NATION

    If you do not LIKE PEOPLE COMMENTING
    or you are not prepared to do that

    I suggest all the TAX FREE RELIGIONS
    START PAYING TAX

    THE HEAD OF STATE OF NZ is ALSO
    THE HEAD OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH

    THAT IS A FACT
    THAT FACT IS NOT OPEN TO DEBATE

    I find it insulting to all the people who lost loved ones
    that something as simple as

    Rebuilding a CHURCH IN
    ………. C H R I S T C H U R C H?

    I will spell it for the people on this Forum who are a little S I M P L E

    C H R I S T C H U R C H

    Christchurch has to become a long drawn out painful excruciating DEBATE

    THE NZ GVT in the period of Re building CHCH
    has passed laws re Gay Marriage

    WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO MARRY JOHN KEY?

    MAYBE DISCUSS THAT AT THE NEXT BIG GAY OUT

    NEXT TO A PILE OF RUBBLE?

    Millions upon Millions are SPENT ON ATHE A TREATY

    Which is a CONTRACT WITH THE CROWN
    which is THE ANGLICAN CHURCH

    BUT when it comes to addressing this Issue
    why are people DRAGGING THEIR HEELS

    AND NOT COMMUNICATING with the GOVERNMENT
    WHO THEY GET TAX FREE STATUS FROM?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE COINAGE OUT OF THIS?

    WINSTON WANTS TO STEAL THE CATHEDRAL

    WHAT RUBBISH?

    WINSTON ACTUALLY QUITE RIGHTLY

    WOULD GIVE THEM ASSISTANCE ?

    I DON’T THINK HE WANTS TO STEAL IT SO STOP BENDING THE TRUTH

    HE ACCEPTS LIKE ANY SANE PERSON THAT

    THE LONG SUFFERING PEOPLE OF CHRISTCHURCH

    SHOULD GET SOMETHING THAT IS

    FITTING – RESPECTFUL – AND APPROPRIATE

    AND IF ALL THE PEOPLE OF NZ HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE

    I THING MOST OF THEM WHO AREN’T MISERABLE

    WILL BE HAPPY TO CONTRIBUTE

    Christian Churches are open to all people of NZ
    and that is regardless of your “religion”

    They are the ultimate “Public Space”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    The Rise and Fall of Nations is in Revelations. :cool:

    I am surprised, Harriet/Field Marshal, that you have made the error of most heathens who focus on the “Hollywood spectacle” aspects of the last book of the canon common to the Apocalyptic genre, rather than its true focus, as per the correct title…

    The (singular) Revelation (of Jesus Christ…)

    A common mistake, but one that has significant implications for coming to a proper and balanced understanding of what the book (and also the wider canon) teach.

    I’ll give you a hint: Go the amillennialism route.

    Just saying :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “when the parish leaders proceeded to cash in on its popularity, and turn it into a tourist attraction, and requesting public money to keep it maintained on that basis.”

    This is, to put it mildly, Judith twisting reality to suit herself. From the get go the tourist attraction idea was the councils, and the partnership between the council and the church led to the funding. For Judith to claim that this was all a one sided “lets get some cash from the council” on the part of the church is just a straight out lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    Griffith.

    Globally Christianity is growing, not declining, at it’s greatest rate ever.

    I guess facts are inconvenient to your particular form of fundamentalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    “when the parish leaders proceeded to cash in on its popularity, and turn it into a tourist attraction, and requesting public money to keep it maintained on that basis.”

    This is, to put it mildly, Judith twisting reality to suit herself. From the get go the tourist attraction idea was the councils, and the partnership between the council and the church led to the funding. For Judith to claim that this was all a one sided “lets get some cash from the council” on the part of the church is just a straight out lie.

    Yeah, Nah. They weren’t dragged kicking and screaming, and no doubt they sold it to their congregation as a form of ministry/raising the profile of the Church. The rest is just quibbling over detail

    As I think you have acknowledged previously, ShawnLH, the real problem goes back to a failure to take the advice of Scripture:

    “Owe no man anything except to love him”. Romans 13:8a.

    Once you’ve cuddled a tar-baby, no matter how well-intentioned (and the road to hell is paved with those!), it is impossible to disengage cleanly.

    Bottom line: Chuches should pay their own way rather than going on the bludge. They are meant to be salt and light, setting good examples of how we should conduct our lives – including living within our means, and exercising good stewardship of the resources entrusted to us.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (384 comments) says:
    March 16th, 2014 at 11:17 am

    Bullshit – the application from the Anglican Church for the funding was made public a while back and clearly defines the Cathedral in those terms. To quote you “I guess the facts are inconvenient for your particular form of ” – illusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    WHERE IS OUR LEADERS COMMENT ON THIS?

    WHAT IS HIS VIEW?

    I mean before he puts a SHEEP ON OUR FLAG?

    He was happy to allow an Israeli squad into the red zone on day one

    helped organise that

    While Kiwis were dead and wounded

    While an amasing city was ruined

    WITH ONE PHONE CALL

    What has happened SINCE THEN?

    WHY DOES IT GET LEFT TO

    WINSTON PETERS

    WHY?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    Kimbo I agree with you, but that was not my point. My point is that Judith’s interpretation of the agreement between the council and the church is conveniantly selective and unfairly pejorative.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    My point is that Judith’s interpretation of the agreement between the council and the church is conveniantly selective and unfairly pejorative.

    Legally -yes.

    Emotionally (where the Anglican Church pitches much of its soft-sell “we are THE church of our community” marketing message – No.

    Morally the truth is somewhere in between.

    No Cathedral means a great deal of disappointment for a whole bunch of heathens who were told that in some way they had a stake, pseudo-spiritual/emotional or otherwise in a pile of rocks.

    Which is why you don’t entrust pearls (spiritual teaching about the nature of the Church and where buildings do or don’t fit into that) before swine.

    But then as the Anglicans are still in need of a Reformation regarding the quasi-pagan papist views regarding “holy places” that many of their communion still zealously hold to, it is probably not surprising there is disappointment when they are found to have sold a spiritually false set of goods.

    Judith is right. On the basis of their previous actions, they should have gone to the community and said, ‘we can’t afford to re-build this and want to move on. Nevertheless, while we expect NOTHING from the non-Anglican or non-Christian community, do you want to fund the balance of a complete restoration – with the proviso we still retain complete ownership and control. If not – no problem”.

    If the answer was “no”, problem solved.

    Instead, now they will have to live with the fall-out. Your attempts at damage-control are commendable – but explaining is losing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “But then as the Anglicans are still in need of a Reformation regarding the quasi-pagan papist views regarding “holy places” that many of their communion still zealously hold to”

    Well that’s a debate for another thread, but you might want to check out Moses being told to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Well that’s a debate for another thread, but you might want to check out Moses being told to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground.

    It is actually central to this thread -and you might want to pick up the more up-to-date of the two Covenant/Testaments as to the true nature of holy place/temple. Ephesians 2-19-22.

    Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

    But then IF it really is a holy place, then NO cost is too great to bear in restoring it – is it? So what are you arguing with Judith about?

    Chickens coming home to roost on your unreformed theology and practice, I’d suggest…

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

    IF YOU ACCEPT TAX Free STATUS as a RELIGION

    YOU HAVE A MORAL LEGAL AND FINANCIAL
    RESPONSIBILITY TO ALL THE TAX PAYERS OF NZ

    Gloss it up any other way put as much spin on it as you like

    All Anglican Churches are PUBLIC SPACES
    funded directly and indirectly by the
    NZ TAX PAYER

    LIKE IT OR NOT
    and if you don’t like it
    and you think that Anglicanism is an exclusive club

    WHEN THE HEAD OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH
    IS

    HEAD OF STATE OF NEW ZEALAND

    PAY TAX DECLARE A REPUBLIC

    AND STOP WASTING PEOPLE’S TIME

    REBUILD YOUR CATHEDRAL OR ANOTHER

    OR LET SOMEONE ELSE DO IT

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Of Course as we all know that
    Kiwis with
    ONE PASSPORT come well behind
    Israelis with FIVE PASSPORTS
    when it comes
    to CHRISTCHURCH

    And that is another reason it has taken
    SO SO SO SO SO SO
    LONGGGGGGG

    For this to even become an

    ISSUE

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Kimbo#

    I’ll give you a hint: Go the amillennialism route.

    Just saying.
    ———————-

    Go via the Stuff route.

    Just saying. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Fentex#

    “….the UK has legislated against free speech with laws that rest on complainant’s assertions that others speech offends them. Such assertion apparently being where they expect to find the definition….”

    Australia has too: The Andrew Bolt case is a very good example of ‘percieved offence’. However those on the left still make slights towards ‘whites’, and when the right complain about their speech the left is always being excused, citing that they are helping other minorities to advance and it is unavoidable that whites[being the majority] will be slighted.
    The Abbott government I think will get rid of most of the laws in this area, as they have said they would, but opposition is now mounting against them for raising the idea.

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

    REBUILD OR REFURBISH THE

    CHRISTCHURCH CATHEDRAL

    DO IT PROPERLY OR SERIOUSLY

    OR
    REMOVE THE QUEEN AS HEAD OF STATE
    THEN RE NAME THE CITY TO SOME THING FITTING LIKE

    “SCUMSSVILLE”

    “BOGANTOWN”

    “CRAPSSVILLE”

    “HEATHENTOWN”

    OR THE

    “PAGANVILLAGE”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “….Chuches should pay their own way rather than going on the bludge. They are meant to be salt and light, setting good examples of how we should conduct our lives – including living within our means, and exercising good stewardship of the resources entrusted to us….”

    Well they do, and their parishners do to, some send their kids to ‘private’ schools but the government won’t deduct from the taxes paid by them the education costs that the parents have been charged by government. If they don’t use ‘public education’ then they shouldn’t be taxed for it. Most parents would then have to take their $9k back per child and give it to the likes of the Lutherans[where my youngest goes to in QLD] along with another $4000[like I do].

    It’s the government that wants it both ways. Even the atheist Gillard said that the religious schools are needed in Australia as the government couldn’t provide that level of education with only a public system. NZ only has 8% of kids in private schools so there is no real comparison for the public to see the benefits and advantages of a private education – ‘unaffordable rich prick privilage’ is thrown at those NZ schools to define them as not being an option – but most of those schools are extremely expensive – and some incorporate the cost of boarding into their fees. NZ parents are being mislead. Like I said – I only pay $4k above my taxes. The Catholics parents ect can pay far less.

    At most private religious Aus schools, the first child is full price, the 2nd is disounted to about 70%, the 3rd to about 50%, the 4th and further children are FREE. Private education is then capped at about $10k per FAMILY [primary] and maxs out at about $17k for ALL children in a family to be in secondry school.

    Then there is aged care.

    The NZ government does not want the Religious to go their own way…..as you said……setting an ‘example’.

    Keep up with the ‘hatred’ of us Religious ones Kimbo. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “….At most private religious Aus schools, the first child is full price, the 2nd is disounted to about 70%, the 3rd to about 50%, the 4th and further children are FREE. Private education is then capped at about $10k per FAMILY [primary] and maxs out at about $17k for ALL children in a family to be in secondry school….”

    That’s per year.

    And that’s also based upon what I pay – which would also be for about probaly 70% of Australian parents who educate their children privately – the other 30% of parents pay more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “But then IF it really is a holy place, then NO cost is too great to bear in restoring it – is it? So what are you arguing with Judith about?”

    No Anglican thinks a cathedral in and of itself is holy ground. Moreover, your confusing the importance with having a cathedral with having a specific design.

    “Chickens coming home to roost on your unreformed theology and practice, I’d suggest…”

    The Anglican Church is both reformed and catholic. Calvinism leads to atheism.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Rowan (2,396 comments) says:

    Enough pissing around and stalling tactics from the do-gooders and heritage zealots telling the church what they should do with their land, time to bring in the diggers and get rid of the ruined mess that was our once beautiful cathedral, and also the Catholic Cathedral which is just as bad. They both need to go, the sooner they are gone the sooner that there can be a replacement built and we will again have a beautiful city, one day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Keep up with the ‘hatred’ of us Religious ones Kimbo. :cool:

    I am religious. Just of the self-sufficient “don’t expect anything from Caesar and don’t even go looking for it variety” of Calvinsim, rather than “we want to have a stake running the show” that the Anglicans inherited from medieval Papists.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    The Anglican Church is both reformed and catholic.

    Hence your schizophrenia demonstrated by

    No Anglican thinks a cathedral in and of itself is holy ground.

    Of course they DO! If not, why would they “consecrate” the thing once it is built?! Stop deceiving yourself, ShawnLH, and dancing on theological pinheads – the details of which most Anglicans remain sweetly oblivious.

    Bottom line: Of your own admission, they were wrong to take public money. OK. Well, bad luck. Christian theology requires that you exercise repentance when you have done wrong. They created a relationship with the community, and now unsurprisingly elements of that community are scandalised when the church doesn’t uphold its side of that relationship, i.e., acts unrighteously (I too spent time studying formally in a theological institution!).

    Time to stop talking and declaring and deciding, and time to start being quiet, listening, and reflecting on what the aggrieved party has to say…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Moreover, your confusing the importance with having a cathedral with having a specific design.

    And you are confusing the importance of the church, and the optional extra of a specific type of building i.e., a cathedral, to house it for times of worship.

    Or is the Anglican diocese of Canterbury prepared to pass up on building a cathedral?

    Thought not!

    “Importance” of a cathedral/white elephant and the need to maintain it got them into this problem in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Rowan (2,396 comments) says:

    From Wikipedia on the catholic cathedral, why such a hard decision? a no brainer to me!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Blessed_Sacrament,_Christchurch

    Restoration or demolition?

    Full restoration of the Cathedral would cost more than $100 million. Construction of a new Cathedral would cost $40 million. The engineering report was completed for the Bishop at the end of 2011. The building is insured for “full replacement”, leaving a funding shortfall if restoration is chosen.[25] There are three options – the demolition of the existing building, the reconstruction of the Cathedral to its former glory, “or, in the short-term, the mothballing” of the building “until there is a clearer picture”.[

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    No Anglican thinks a cathedral in and of itself is holy ground.

    Uh huh. Yet you also seem to believe in the ongoing applicability of

    Moses being told to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground.

    So buildings are NOT inherently holy, but the ground on which they stand/once stood/will stand again is?!

    Time to ditch a belief in the holiness of inanimate objects such as places, buildings, utensils, tents, garments and other items found in the temporary administration of the Old Testament…

    and come into the New. ONLY the people of Christ, indwelt by the Holy Spirit are holy.

    And stop bludging off pagans who will always lack the spiritual apparatus to properly apprehend and administer the mysteries of Christ.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “yet you also seem to believe in the ongoing applicability of”

    Never said anything about “ongoing applicability”.

    “o buildings are NOT inherently holy, but the ground on which they stand/once stood/will stand again is?!”

    Neither, and Anglicans believe neither. Your very confused about what Anglicans actually believe.

    “Time to ditch a belief in inanimate objects such as places, buildings, utensils, tents, garments”

    Nobody “believes in” those things, but they are useful, and Biblical, and all were employed in the early church in less than a generation after the Apostles. The Episcopate goes back to the early church as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Never said anything about “ongoing applicability”.

    Then why did you counsel me to look to the example of Moses when I wrote “But then as the Anglicans are still in need of a Reformation regarding the quasi-pagan papist views regarding “holy places””?

    Either holy places are no longer applicable in the New Testament dispensation – in which case you wouldn’t have directed me to take note of an example in Scripture where one DID exist ONCE,…

    or they are as per your appeal to the text.

    Which is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    And I note you’ve misquoted me when you say

    Nobody “believes in” those things,

    and you quote me as having wrote

    “Time to ditch a belief in inanimate objects such as places, buildings…”

    when I actually wrote

    Time to ditch a belief in the holiness (my emphasis) of inanimate objects such as places, buildings…

    I know your intent was not to break the 9th commandment. Nevertheless, I chose my words carefully. I’d ask you to kindly quote/and or paraphrase them with care. The omission affected the meaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    The Episcopate goes back to the early church as well.

    You mean the office of presbyter? :)

    Time to smoke you out on the quasi-pagan papist superstition my fine Anglican friend: –

    Is or is not the laying on of an unbroken succession of hands from the time of the Apostles NECESSARY to confer the office of episkopos? And what does the Anglican Church officially teach?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “You mean the office of presbyter?”

    The actual Greek word translates as priest. I studied Koine Greek at theological college.

    And the episcopate can be seen as early as the first leaders who learnt from the Apsotles.

    “Is or is not the laying on of an unbroken succession of hands from the time of the Apostles NECESSARY to confer the office of episkopos?”

    Yes.

    As to your other claims. I was pointing out that your dismissal of holy ground is contra Scripture. Either it is or it is not. You can’t have it both ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    The actual Greek word translates as priest. I studied Koine Greek at theological college.

    Not in continuity with the vocabulary of the LXX/Septuagint it doesn’t. And THAT is usually the basis for the Hebrew idioms transposed into the New Testament texts. If they had wanted it to be understood as “priest” they would have used the vocabulary of the LXX. I studied Koine as well.

    But presbuteros, used in the New Testament, DOES match the word used in the LXX to describe the office of “elders” that Moses instituted in Numbers chapter 11.

    As to your other claims. I was pointing out that your dismissal of holy ground is contra Scripture. Either it is or it is not. You can’t have it both ways.

    Now you are being devious. You know VERY well I meant that it does not apply today. Or do you want to start implementing animal sacrifices for the remission of sins?

    Yes or no – Is there such a thing as “holy ground” for today’s church? If not, why did you seek to counsel me, contra the teaching and applicability of Scripture for today on the matter?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    Winston’s tobacco and alcohol addled brain is showing signs of wear and tear. He is cognitively impaired with delusions of grandeur. John Key’s skilful tactics of not entirely ruling him out means that disaffected Labour voters will not flock to him if the polls show Labour losing. NZF getting 4% is the equivalent of another 1.9% to National.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. ShawnLH (5,124 comments) says:

    “Now you are being devious. You know VERY well I meant that it does not apply today.”

    No, I didin’t know that at all. I’m honestly not being devious, but your statement suggested that any notion of holy ground was Pagan. If that was not your point, the fault was not mine.

    But getting back to the Cathedral, the importance of a cathedral has nothing to do with the building being holy, or the ground, or indeed of holiness at all. It’s importance lies in it being the seat of the Bishop, and thus a symbol of authority and unity. Nothing pagan about that, unless you want to suggest that the Reformed Church of Hungary is pagan.

    What church do you belong to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    No, I didin’t know that at all. I’m honestly not being devious, but your statement suggested that any notion of holy ground was Pagan. If that was not your point, the fault was not mine.

    Well, as it was in the PRESENT context of rebuilding a cathedral in Christchurch, and I made mention of Catholics and Anglicans (who were not around at the time of Moses – I’m sure your time of formal theological instruction would have confirmed that :) ) I thought it was obvious. However…

    But getting back to the Cathedral

    yes, let’s!

    It’s importance lies in it being the seat of the Bishop, and thus a symbol of authority and unity. Nothing pagan about that

    Yes, cathedra = throne (I picked up a bit of Latin as well, but not much:) ). Well, seeing as you believe (s)he is only a bishop through an unbroken succession of the laying on of hands, we’ll have to differ on the paganism/sacerdotalism thing.

    Or more precisely it is a case of less or more reformed form the intrusion of paganism. Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est/”The Church that is reformed is continually being reformed” Hmm. I seem to have picked up more Latin than I thought!

    What church do you belong to?

    Sometimes (ironically) Anglican by default, because when lots else is poor, at least you have the prayer book liturgy to fall back on.

    But still really looking for one with what I consider the bottom line, irrespective of Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Congregational government: competent leadership! Not great, outstanding, or good. Just competent. Is a bit of a worry that there seems none about (I DON’T think my standards are too high), so we just stick to worship within the household at present. Like the early church – refer to the New Testament, whether in koine, or translated into English :) . Not entirely satisfactory but I won’t jeopardise my family’s spiritual welfare trying to prove a point.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    the importance of a cathedral has nothing to do with the building being holy, or the ground, or indeed of holiness at all. It’s importance lies in it being the seat of the Bishop, and thus a symbol of authority and unity

    The problem there, though, is what is OFFICIALLY taught (or not referred to that much), and what is UNOFFICIALLY communicated on a continual basis by the style and grandeur of the architecture.

    Don’t believe me?

    Then what bishop or diocese will ever humble themselves to have their “seat of the Bishop” take the form of a simple unadorned converted warehouse or hired school hall as other Christians find eminently suitable, useful and necessary?

    Nope, not a chance! Instead it is off aping the Catholics with their stone mausoleums of ego and power. Irrespective of the stated belief (orthodoxy) the very actions (orthopraxis) demonstrate that in PRACTICE they consider the place and building ‘holy’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    The “Israelite” with

    FIVE PASSPORTS

    that it was so important to get out of “Christchurch”

    in 14 HOURS

    What Nationalities were the

    OTHER PASSPORTS he held?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    I can’t be bothered reading the previous 200 comments but has anybody compared Winston to the Pope?

    Or, dear I say it……The Godhead?

    Most of his supporters would stick him in one or other of those two categories.

    Hence he should be able to dispose of his own property as he see’s fit….. after he’s cleared it with Jim Anderton of course! :)

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

    Was it 5 or TWO PASSPORTS

    Key admits 1 phone call but were there 4

    and what about this

    <
    Another Israeli group, a forensic analysis team sent by the Israeli government, was welcomed in Christchurch and worked on victim identification in the morgue.
    <
    Isn't that a bit creepy Foreign teams in the morgue?

    Why the sudden interest sudden departure

    How Odd

    ANYWAY

    When will the Cathedral be sorted?

    NEVER

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    A poll taken on May 26, 2012 revealed the following: ( ex: Stuff )

    The fate of the Anglican cathedral has divided the region, with 54 per cent of those polled favouring demolition and 42 per cent calling for it to be saved.

    People with strong feelings about restoring or demolishing the cathedral are divided equally, with 25 per cent each.

    Opinions Market Research director Karen Selway, who conducted the poll, said the debate over the cathedral was a “heart versus head” issue.

    The poll also revealed that Cantabrians do not want to pay for church projects.

    Most people are against a government levy or tax to fund restoration, with 63 per cent of those polled against the idea.

    People opposed to public funding believed the money should be spent on more important priorities and that the church should fund its own projects. Among people who felt strongly that the cathedral should be retained, 69 per cent were prepared to pay a levy for restoration

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Rowan (2,396 comments) says:

    With all the ideas and election promises I have heard from Labour, The Greens and now Winston Peters trying to get votes from the public, they have all reinforced my belief that NZ would be far better of without any them in power or a coalition partner. I would never have voted for them anyway but my opinion of them is now even lower. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious the damage they could do to the country if they were any part of parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Crusader (314 comments) says:

    People opposed to public funding believed the money should be spent on more important priorities and that the church should fund its own projects. Among people who felt strongly that the cathedral should be retained, 69 per cent were prepared to pay a levy for restoration

    Count me among the former group. As for the latter group, they are welcome to donate to the Anglican Church I am sure. Or form a consortium and buy the building for restoration themselves. I fail to see the priority over other things, e.g. a functioning drainage system considering recent flooding.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Donate the Rubble to Winston and he can rebuild something in Tauranga

    Well done glad to hear it is all sorted

    Thanks for the Tax free Status and Making the Head of our Church head of state

    in Future put a pile of Rubble on one of the Significant $ Notes
    along with a Picture f John Key
    with that gorgeous smile of his
    that he had at

    THE BIG GAY OUT

    I mean it is not like we are asking the place to be renamed

    SODOMITE CITY is it

    and it perfectly fine for the Israelies to sneak around the Morgue

    it is not like they were looking for

    MORE PASSPORTS was it

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5311500/SAS-patrolled-near-suspected-Israeli-spies

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Rowan (2,396 comments) says:

    Winston like Anderton and the rest of the save the cathedral campaigners are basing there stance on emotion, the church have based theirs on facts, they have not made any decisions lightly, the cathedral is f..ked and needs to come down, yes this is tragic but its just a building and is replaceable.

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

    SO WHAT IS THE HOLD UP?

    FOR CHRIST’S SAKE?

    CHRIST CHURCH

    Do you need some COIN from the Hard working Jaffas do you?

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