Bay of Plenty Times published this on 17 October 2006.
Sorry to disappoint your correspondent Igor Tomson (Letters 4 October) but I fear I am travelling in the wrong direction on his “road to Damascus”. Unlike St Paul, I was brought up in the Christian tradition and my “conversion” was to secular humanism. I prefer a worldview which encourages me to think for myself and to think about others.
Unlike religion, humanism does not claim to have all the answers, but accepts human fallibility. It holds that the scientific method is the best tool for understanding the world around us. It accepts scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and of life on earth.
Humanism has no sacred writings, but bases its values on human experience and compassion. Humanism embraces the best in all worldviews, e.g. the Golden Rule, but it holds that new problems may require new solutions. Ethical living requires a living ethic. Humanists are morally progressive and support liberal abortion, voluntary euthanasia, civil unions, etc.
I don’t expect Igor Tomson will agree with most of this, but I suspect that most New Zealanders are humanists although they may not describe themselves as such.
18 October 2006
Which god for schools?
Bay of Plenty Times published this on 16 October 2006.
Margaret Muirhead’s sales pitch for religion in schools (Letters, 7 October) demands a response. The main problem with religion is that it closes children’s minds when they should be opened. It teaches as absolute truths ideas that are not believed by large numbers of people of different worldviews. These ideas can be irrational and in direct conflict with what children are being taught in other disciplines such as science. Religion is morally conservative, promoting the idea that the last word in ethics was written 2,000 years ago. It also encourages children to think of themselves as “chosen” while those of other faiths are not only wrong, but wicked.
Margaret does not tell us which god is needed in schools. The god of Islam or Al Qaeda? The god of Brian Tamaki or Graham Capill? The god of the Exclusive Brethren or the Latter Day Saints? The list of gods could go on. None of these gods or religions has the monopoly on virtue. In fact the news is full of stories about religious teachers who have been convicted of crimes of fraud, child abuse, etc. On the other hand there are many who live ethically without god or religion.
Margaret Muirhead’s sales pitch for religion in schools (Letters, 7 October) demands a response. The main problem with religion is that it closes children’s minds when they should be opened. It teaches as absolute truths ideas that are not believed by large numbers of people of different worldviews. These ideas can be irrational and in direct conflict with what children are being taught in other disciplines such as science. Religion is morally conservative, promoting the idea that the last word in ethics was written 2,000 years ago. It also encourages children to think of themselves as “chosen” while those of other faiths are not only wrong, but wicked.
Margaret does not tell us which god is needed in schools. The god of Islam or Al Qaeda? The god of Brian Tamaki or Graham Capill? The god of the Exclusive Brethren or the Latter Day Saints? The list of gods could go on. None of these gods or religions has the monopoly on virtue. In fact the news is full of stories about religious teachers who have been convicted of crimes of fraud, child abuse, etc. On the other hand there are many who live ethically without god or religion.
Which version of Christianity?
Like many jeremiahs Ken Salt (Bay Times 14 September) laments the passing of an imaginary golden age. He goes on to lay the blame for today’s problems in schools at the feet of atheists. He offers no causal connection between atheism and these problems. For him it is self-evident that those who believe in his god are good, and those who do not are, not only wrong, but wicked. Finally he comes to his point – he has something to sell – a plug for Christianity in schools, presumably state schools since most private schools are religious in nature.
When New Zealand’s state schools were established as secular in 1877, this was in no small part due to the fact that the various denominations of Christians could not agree to teach one particular brand of Christianity. Ken Salt should come clean and tell us which brand he has in mind. Is it the liberal Christianity that acknowledges the limitations of the Bible, that tolerates other worldviews, that welcomes gays into the clergy, that accepts the fact of evolution? Or is it the fundamentalist kind that takes the Bible literally, that teaches creationism, that vilifies gays, atheists and anyone else who dares to have a different philosophy of life?
When New Zealand’s state schools were established as secular in 1877, this was in no small part due to the fact that the various denominations of Christians could not agree to teach one particular brand of Christianity. Ken Salt should come clean and tell us which brand he has in mind. Is it the liberal Christianity that acknowledges the limitations of the Bible, that tolerates other worldviews, that welcomes gays into the clergy, that accepts the fact of evolution? Or is it the fundamentalist kind that takes the Bible literally, that teaches creationism, that vilifies gays, atheists and anyone else who dares to have a different philosophy of life?
Atrophied values
Bay of Plenty Times, 26 September 2006, published this under the heading "No link to lawlessness".
Ken Salt apologised for misquoting the humanist Manifesto and then proceeds to misrepresent me. In no way did I suggest that Humanism is responsible for lawlessness. My point was that New Zealanders are rejecting the atrophied values of the mainstream churches. Traditionalists react by repeating again and again the message that has been rejected. They have no other choice because they believe that the last word in ethics was written two thousand years ago. (I understand that repeating an action over and over and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. It is certainly a denial of reality.)
Humanists on the other hand believe that all values are human creations and need to be updated in the light of increasing human knowledge and experience. Like most people we teach our children the golden rule and that it is wrong to kill, to steal, to lie, etc. But we encourage them to have an open mind: a healthy scepticism is more likely to lead to better ideas than blind beliefs. We teach them the ideals of an open society: tolerance and appreciation of differences are better than bigotry based on ignorance. I don’t know any humanists who advocate lawlessness, but I know of traditional Christians who teach religion in state schools and practise corporal punishment in private schools, both of which are against the law.
Ken Salt apologised for misquoting the humanist Manifesto and then proceeds to misrepresent me. In no way did I suggest that Humanism is responsible for lawlessness. My point was that New Zealanders are rejecting the atrophied values of the mainstream churches. Traditionalists react by repeating again and again the message that has been rejected. They have no other choice because they believe that the last word in ethics was written two thousand years ago. (I understand that repeating an action over and over and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. It is certainly a denial of reality.)
Humanists on the other hand believe that all values are human creations and need to be updated in the light of increasing human knowledge and experience. Like most people we teach our children the golden rule and that it is wrong to kill, to steal, to lie, etc. But we encourage them to have an open mind: a healthy scepticism is more likely to lead to better ideas than blind beliefs. We teach them the ideals of an open society: tolerance and appreciation of differences are better than bigotry based on ignorance. I don’t know any humanists who advocate lawlessness, but I know of traditional Christians who teach religion in state schools and practise corporal punishment in private schools, both of which are against the law.
Gay Bay
I Tomson (Bay Times 24 August) holds that commonsense says homosexual activity is unnatural and abhorrent. But homosexuals are following their own nature so homosexuality is clearly not unnatural to them and as long as they are consenting adults their sexual preference should not concern anyone else. This commonsense view is now firmly established in New Zealand law. Homosexuality may not be Tomson’s personal preference but tolerance is about accepting difference. There is no virtue in tolerating only people who are the same as oneself. On the other hand I do not believe in absolutes. Instead I ask myself if tolerating intolerant people will increase or decrease the total tolerance in New Zealand and conclude that it will reduce it. So I do not tolerate the intolerant.
Religion in schools
A couple of items in the Bay Times report that New Zealand law is being flouted by Christian groups. Firstly at least three Christian schools refuse to rule out the use of corporal punishment even though the Education Act makes it illegal. Secondly another group of state schools allows religious instruction and observance although this is also illegal in state primary and intermediate schools. In both cases Christian extremists are displaying arrogance in thinking themselves above the law. Their disregard for the law also sets an appallingly bad example to the children in their care. Fortunately Green MP Sue Bradford is calling for an investigation into the illegal corporal punishment and the Ministry of education addressing the illegal religious indoctrination. I expect that the National Party will jump in to support both Sue Bradford and the Ministry. After all, this is consistent with their slogan: One law for all.
Traditional values
Your correspondents I Tomson and KH Salt (Bay Times, 18 August 2006) are two of a kind. Both complain that traditional values have been replaced by “today’s condom culture” or “atheistic humanist laws”. Neither considers that the problem may lie with traditional values and those who cling to them. Maybe humanistic values and solutions are simply filling the vacuum left by the failure of traditional values. If a new generation have rejected traditional values and this has resulted in rising rates of venereal disease, Tomson and Salt are free to carry on flogging a dead horse, but why do they criticise those who try to reduce the damage? Salt in particular even goes so far as to bear false witness by attributing to the Humanist Manifesto a quote about “the rotting corpse of Christianity”. I have checked the text of Humanist Manifestos I, II and III. None of them contain this phrase. In fact I cannot find any reference to Christianity at all. The three manifestos were written by some eminent thinkers of the twentieth century. Salt should have the courtesy to read what they actually wrote before attempting to quote them.
Maori Seats
Des’s pet theory.
Hubbard’s View (Bay Times, 9 August) suggests that separate Maori seats are outdated. But parliamentary electorates are supposed to reflect community of interest. In days gone by when people did not travel as much as they do today and communications were limited, their economic, social and political interests probably were the same as the people next door. Today we travel widely and technology has reduced the world to a global village. I am likely to have more in common with someone at the other end of New Zealand than with my next-door neighbour. Why should community of interest be determined any more by geography? Isn’t it the General Roll that is the anachronism?
Maybe we should consider extending the Maori Option instead of scrapping it.
Pacific Islanders could have their own roll if they decided that their ethnic origins provided more community of interest than their street address. In fact the option could be extended to any group of people with a shared community of interest that was more important to them than where they live - provided they could command the numbers to warrant a separate roll. This is just another form of proportional representation. The Maori seats may be a pointer towards the future rather than a relic from the past.
Hubbard’s View (Bay Times, 9 August) suggests that separate Maori seats are outdated. But parliamentary electorates are supposed to reflect community of interest. In days gone by when people did not travel as much as they do today and communications were limited, their economic, social and political interests probably were the same as the people next door. Today we travel widely and technology has reduced the world to a global village. I am likely to have more in common with someone at the other end of New Zealand than with my next-door neighbour. Why should community of interest be determined any more by geography? Isn’t it the General Roll that is the anachronism?
Maybe we should consider extending the Maori Option instead of scrapping it.
Pacific Islanders could have their own roll if they decided that their ethnic origins provided more community of interest than their street address. In fact the option could be extended to any group of people with a shared community of interest that was more important to them than where they live - provided they could command the numbers to warrant a separate roll. This is just another form of proportional representation. The Maori seats may be a pointer towards the future rather than a relic from the past.
Homophobe
Your correspondent Bill Capamagian (Bay Times, 8 August) does not speak for me. His anti-gay views clearly identify him as one of the bigoted homophobes that the Aids Foundation thinks the Bay is full of. He bases his intolerance on his interpretation of Christianity and the Bible. No wonder so many New Zealanders – in fact the biggest single group in the last two censuses – profess no religion at all. Clearly we have a lot of work to do if we are to correct the image of the Bay of Plenty as an ignorant and intolerant backwater.
Shooting the messenger
I liked this one, but it was not published – too long..
Your correspondent M K Grayson (Bay Times 28 July) and the earlier Hubbard cartoon (Bay Times 19 July) are both guilty of shooting the messenger. Bob Geldof took the opportunity of his visit to New Zealand to remind us that, while we are worrying about the rising cost of petrol for our cars and boats, millions are dying of poverty in the so-called Third World. He pointed out how little we as a country donate to help these people and challenged us to do more. But how much should we give? Australian philosopher Peter Singer tackles this question in his book One World: The Ethics of Globalisation. He knows that no one is going to give up all their wealth. Not many would be prepared to give half and few even ten per cent. Singer settles for one cent in every dollar. To put it crudely, he says that, if we give one cent in every dollar we earn, we can spend the other 99 cents with an easy conscience. The United Nations has come up with an even lower target for its member countries: it recommends that the rich countries give just under three-quarters of a cent in every dollar (0.7%) of their GDP to the poor countries. The latest figures show that among the most generous countries are the Scandinavians who give one cent in the dollar (1.0% of GDP). They match Singer’s figure and exceed the UN target. At the other end of the scale the USA – possibly the richest country in the world – is the least generous. To our shame New Zealand and our cousins across the ditch make up the rest of the bottom three. New Zealand as a country gives little more than a quarter of a cent in every dollar of GDP. This was Geldof’s message. We can react to it in a number of ways. We can say that this is all we are prepared to give, or we can lobby our MPs and insist that New Zealand can do better, Or we can simply shoot the messenger.
Des Vize
Your correspondent M K Grayson (Bay Times 28 July) and the earlier Hubbard cartoon (Bay Times 19 July) are both guilty of shooting the messenger. Bob Geldof took the opportunity of his visit to New Zealand to remind us that, while we are worrying about the rising cost of petrol for our cars and boats, millions are dying of poverty in the so-called Third World. He pointed out how little we as a country donate to help these people and challenged us to do more. But how much should we give? Australian philosopher Peter Singer tackles this question in his book One World: The Ethics of Globalisation. He knows that no one is going to give up all their wealth. Not many would be prepared to give half and few even ten per cent. Singer settles for one cent in every dollar. To put it crudely, he says that, if we give one cent in every dollar we earn, we can spend the other 99 cents with an easy conscience. The United Nations has come up with an even lower target for its member countries: it recommends that the rich countries give just under three-quarters of a cent in every dollar (0.7%) of their GDP to the poor countries. The latest figures show that among the most generous countries are the Scandinavians who give one cent in the dollar (1.0% of GDP). They match Singer’s figure and exceed the UN target. At the other end of the scale the USA – possibly the richest country in the world – is the least generous. To our shame New Zealand and our cousins across the ditch make up the rest of the bottom three. New Zealand as a country gives little more than a quarter of a cent in every dollar of GDP. This was Geldof’s message. We can react to it in a number of ways. We can say that this is all we are prepared to give, or we can lobby our MPs and insist that New Zealand can do better, Or we can simply shoot the messenger.
Des Vize
What happened to journalism?
Hi guys! What a redneck place the BOP is. I’ve been busy writing letters to the local paper, so I’ve decided to share my epistles with you so you can get a flavour.
Cheers,
Des
As a relative newcomer to the Bay of Plenty I was delighted to accept you introductory offer of a month’s free subscription to the Bay of Plenty Times. I thought this would keep me informed about people and events in the community I have chosen to be part of. Imagine my disappointment when I unwrapped Monday’s paper to find that almost the entire front page was dedicated to the fantasies of so-called “super-psychic”, Deb Webber. This item contained nothing newsworthy and was an insult to my intelligence. It reported Webber’s “contact” as factual and her imaginings as real events. The fact that the paper proudly branded this nonsense as an “exclusive” speaks volumes about the gullibility of your senior reporter Katherine Hoby and her editor. The only nod to sanity was buried in a small insert at the bottom right: the investigating officer’s comment that there’s never been a case worldwide where a psychic has led police to a body. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. What should I look forward to next – exclusive photos of the fairies at the bottom of my garden?
Des Vize
Cheers,
Des
As a relative newcomer to the Bay of Plenty I was delighted to accept you introductory offer of a month’s free subscription to the Bay of Plenty Times. I thought this would keep me informed about people and events in the community I have chosen to be part of. Imagine my disappointment when I unwrapped Monday’s paper to find that almost the entire front page was dedicated to the fantasies of so-called “super-psychic”, Deb Webber. This item contained nothing newsworthy and was an insult to my intelligence. It reported Webber’s “contact” as factual and her imaginings as real events. The fact that the paper proudly branded this nonsense as an “exclusive” speaks volumes about the gullibility of your senior reporter Katherine Hoby and her editor. The only nod to sanity was buried in a small insert at the bottom right: the investigating officer’s comment that there’s never been a case worldwide where a psychic has led police to a body. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. What should I look forward to next – exclusive photos of the fairies at the bottom of my garden?
Des Vize
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
