Igor Tomson took exception to my letter pointing out that religion was the cause of most of the conflict around the world. He suggested I would get what's coming to me when I die. The BOP Times published my response yesterday, 10 May.
The sun we spin around is just one of billions of suns in our galaxy. Our galaxy is just one of billions of galaxies that make up the known universe. The enormity of the universe is mind-boggling. Your correspondent I Tomson asks me to believe that all of this was created by the old Jewish war-god Yahweh. Even sillier is his suggestion (BOP Times 2 May 2007) that a being capable of such a creation should be looking forward to one day meeting me.
11 May 2007
06 May 2007
Fading faith
NZ Listener published this on my birthday, 5 May:
In your cover story In the name of God Philip Matthews quotes some statistics from the New Zealand Census 2006 that could paint a misleading picture of the strength of religious affiliation in this country. An analysis of the “No Religion” responses over time shows a steady increase from 1in 5 Kiwis in 1991, to 1 in 4 in 1996, and 1 in 3 at the last census in 2006. This growing rejection of religion is by far the most significant trend in the religious affiliation responses over this period. It corresponds to an increase of almost 5% every census (or 1% per annum). At this rate the non-religious will outnumber the religious within a generation.
In your cover story In the name of God Philip Matthews quotes some statistics from the New Zealand Census 2006 that could paint a misleading picture of the strength of religious affiliation in this country. An analysis of the “No Religion” responses over time shows a steady increase from 1in 5 Kiwis in 1991, to 1 in 4 in 1996, and 1 in 3 at the last census in 2006. This growing rejection of religion is by far the most significant trend in the religious affiliation responses over this period. It corresponds to an increase of almost 5% every census (or 1% per annum). At this rate the non-religious will outnumber the religious within a generation.
Census 2006
BOP Times published this on 23 April:
The Editor’s note to correspondent James Lowes (BOP Times 13/04/07) does not go far enough. As your original article pointed out, the Census results for the BOP tend to reflect the results for the country at large. Analysis of the “No Religion” responses over time shows a steady increase from 1in 5 Kiwis in 1991, to 1 in 4 in 1996, and 1 in 3 at the last census in 2006. This growing rejection of religion is by far the most significant trend in the religious affiliation responses over this period. It corresponds to an increase of almost 5% every census (or 1% per annum). At this rate the non-religious will outnumber the religious in New Zealand within a generation.
This can only be good news given that religion has been the root case of most of the conflict and suffering in the world in recent times. Consider for a moment the conflicts in Iraq, Palestine, the Balkans, Kashmir, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, etc. Not to mention the so-called “9/11” attacks that launched George Bush’s war on Islam. Without exception religion defines the combatants as Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or warring sects of the same. It seems that if people believe absurdities, they will commit atrocities.
The Editor’s note to correspondent James Lowes (BOP Times 13/04/07) does not go far enough. As your original article pointed out, the Census results for the BOP tend to reflect the results for the country at large. Analysis of the “No Religion” responses over time shows a steady increase from 1in 5 Kiwis in 1991, to 1 in 4 in 1996, and 1 in 3 at the last census in 2006. This growing rejection of religion is by far the most significant trend in the religious affiliation responses over this period. It corresponds to an increase of almost 5% every census (or 1% per annum). At this rate the non-religious will outnumber the religious in New Zealand within a generation.
This can only be good news given that religion has been the root case of most of the conflict and suffering in the world in recent times. Consider for a moment the conflicts in Iraq, Palestine, the Balkans, Kashmir, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, etc. Not to mention the so-called “9/11” attacks that launched George Bush’s war on Islam. Without exception religion defines the combatants as Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or warring sects of the same. It seems that if people believe absurdities, they will commit atrocities.
Poll on smacking was rigged
I know the BOP Times did not publish this:
Your headline “94% of Bay folk say no to Sue” is misleading, deliberately so, I suspect. The fact is that 94% of a mere 354 self-selected respondents said no. They did not say no to Sue, but to the question “Do you think smacking should be outlawed?”. What would they have said to something like “Do you think legal loopholes should be removed from child abusers?”. What you are trying to pass off as some sort of objective polling is no more than a cheap set-up with a rigged result in support of your newspaper’s ongoing campaign against Sue Bradford’s bill.
The rest of the propaganda piece contains quote after quote from opponents of the bill. In favour of the bill Sue Bradford is allowed literally one word.
This unbalanced piece has no place on the News page, but should have been on the Opinion page where it belonged.
Your headline “94% of Bay folk say no to Sue” is misleading, deliberately so, I suspect. The fact is that 94% of a mere 354 self-selected respondents said no. They did not say no to Sue, but to the question “Do you think smacking should be outlawed?”. What would they have said to something like “Do you think legal loopholes should be removed from child abusers?”. What you are trying to pass off as some sort of objective polling is no more than a cheap set-up with a rigged result in support of your newspaper’s ongoing campaign against Sue Bradford’s bill.
The rest of the propaganda piece contains quote after quote from opponents of the bill. In favour of the bill Sue Bradford is allowed literally one word.
This unbalanced piece has no place on the News page, but should have been on the Opinion page where it belonged.
No causal link to smacking
Not sure if the BOP Times published this one:
It may surprise KH Salt (Bay Times, 30 December 2006) to learn that forty years ago I was in my teens and I can well remember that corporal punishment was commonplace both at home and at school. In my experience bullies remained bullies even after “six of the best”. The only lesson the cane taught was not to get caught.
K H Salt fails to show a causal link between the absence of corporal punishment and a perceived increase in “violence, corruption and immorality”. In fact he offers several possible alternative causes: the United Nations, atheism, a decline in the influence of British common law, departure from the Ten Commandments.
His argument would have some validity if he could show that those children who were never beaten were later responsible for the violence, corruption, etc., while those who were beaten became model citizens. A brief spell working with problem children some years ago taught me that, whatever these children needed, it was not another hiding.
It may surprise KH Salt (Bay Times, 30 December 2006) to learn that forty years ago I was in my teens and I can well remember that corporal punishment was commonplace both at home and at school. In my experience bullies remained bullies even after “six of the best”. The only lesson the cane taught was not to get caught.
K H Salt fails to show a causal link between the absence of corporal punishment and a perceived increase in “violence, corruption and immorality”. In fact he offers several possible alternative causes: the United Nations, atheism, a decline in the influence of British common law, departure from the Ten Commandments.
His argument would have some validity if he could show that those children who were never beaten were later responsible for the violence, corruption, etc., while those who were beaten became model citizens. A brief spell working with problem children some years ago taught me that, whatever these children needed, it was not another hiding.
22 February 2007
800 year old anachronism
This was published by the Bay of Plenty Times on Thursday, 22 February 2007:
If Maori electorates are “a paternalistic relic of the 19th century”, as your editorial of 3 February states, then the general electorates are a feudal relic of the 13th century. From that period Westminster-style democracies have based their redistribution of electorates on an undefined “community of interest” that usually amounts to a quaint notion that my interests are the same as the person next door. What may have been true for people eight hundred years ago is surely the real anachronism in today’s global village.
Maori people have some choice about their community of interest and many have decided that their ethnicity is more important than their street address. This option should be extended not only to Pacific Islanders, as Tariana Turia proposes, but to any group who feel they can identify their real community of interest better than half a dozen bureaucrats.
Students of electoral systems believe the rest of the world can learn from this unique New Zealand example of proportional representation. Maori achieved universal suffrage 12 years before European men and one day they will be able to boast that they were the first to break away from electorates based purely on geography.
If Maori electorates are “a paternalistic relic of the 19th century”, as your editorial of 3 February states, then the general electorates are a feudal relic of the 13th century. From that period Westminster-style democracies have based their redistribution of electorates on an undefined “community of interest” that usually amounts to a quaint notion that my interests are the same as the person next door. What may have been true for people eight hundred years ago is surely the real anachronism in today’s global village.
Maori people have some choice about their community of interest and many have decided that their ethnicity is more important than their street address. This option should be extended not only to Pacific Islanders, as Tariana Turia proposes, but to any group who feel they can identify their real community of interest better than half a dozen bureaucrats.
Students of electoral systems believe the rest of the world can learn from this unique New Zealand example of proportional representation. Maori achieved universal suffrage 12 years before European men and one day they will be able to boast that they were the first to break away from electorates based purely on geography.
19 February 2007
Desperate call
My reply to HM Craig was published on Monday, 19 February 2007:
H M Craig’s enthusiasm for the Jewish war god Yahweh and his son, Rabbi Yeshua, (Bay Times, 23 December 2006) is no proof of the truth of what is taught in Bible in Schools. Nor is it any justification for what HM Craig concedes is brain washing. This is particularly the case when the 2006 census figures show yet another dramatic rise in the number of New Zealanders who profess to have “No Religion”. The number has risen to 1.3 million out of a total population of just over 4 million, in other words one in every three Kiwis. (Compare this with just over half a million Anglicans and barely half a million Catholics.) How long before there are more refusals than acceptances of Yahweh’s invitation? No wonder the Bible in Schools gang are prepared to run roughshod over the law of New Zealand. Desperate times call for desperate measures, perhaps.
H M Craig’s enthusiasm for the Jewish war god Yahweh and his son, Rabbi Yeshua, (Bay Times, 23 December 2006) is no proof of the truth of what is taught in Bible in Schools. Nor is it any justification for what HM Craig concedes is brain washing. This is particularly the case when the 2006 census figures show yet another dramatic rise in the number of New Zealanders who profess to have “No Religion”. The number has risen to 1.3 million out of a total population of just over 4 million, in other words one in every three Kiwis. (Compare this with just over half a million Anglicans and barely half a million Catholics.) How long before there are more refusals than acceptances of Yahweh’s invitation? No wonder the Bible in Schools gang are prepared to run roughshod over the law of New Zealand. Desperate times call for desperate measures, perhaps.
18 February 2007
Not business of schools to seek converts
The Bay of Plenty Times published the following on Saturday, 17 February 2007.
It has been well said that the scripture of one age becomes the literature of the next. In that sense the Bible has its place in twenty-first century education alongside the tales of the Greek and Roman gods, whose names we give to the planets, and next to the sagas of the old Norse gods, who give their names to the days of the week. However it would make as much sense to teach the Bible as history, as suggested by Bill Capamagian (Bay Times 28 December 2006), as it would to teach the Iliad or the Odyssey as history.
If Bill read some of these old myths he would learn that Mithra, Adonis and Osiris were just three examples of demi-gods who died and rose from the dead. Far from making Christianity “unique among religions” the death and resurrection of Rabbi Yeshua were par for the course.
It is not the business of schools to seek to convert their pupils to any particular religion. Mainstream New Zealand clearly adopted that principle when establishing the state education system in 1877. Bill Capamagian repeatedly fails to explain why some Christians should be above the law.
It has been well said that the scripture of one age becomes the literature of the next. In that sense the Bible has its place in twenty-first century education alongside the tales of the Greek and Roman gods, whose names we give to the planets, and next to the sagas of the old Norse gods, who give their names to the days of the week. However it would make as much sense to teach the Bible as history, as suggested by Bill Capamagian (Bay Times 28 December 2006), as it would to teach the Iliad or the Odyssey as history.
If Bill read some of these old myths he would learn that Mithra, Adonis and Osiris were just three examples of demi-gods who died and rose from the dead. Far from making Christianity “unique among religions” the death and resurrection of Rabbi Yeshua were par for the course.
It is not the business of schools to seek to convert their pupils to any particular religion. Mainstream New Zealand clearly adopted that principle when establishing the state education system in 1877. Bill Capamagian repeatedly fails to explain why some Christians should be above the law.
11 February 2007
Immaculate Misconception
This appeared in the Bay Times of Friday, 29 December:
It pains me to reveal this in such a public fashion, as I have won many a pub bet on this subject, but your front-page item (Bay Times, 21 December 2006) on the parthenogenesis of Flora, the komodo dragon, perpetuates the common error that the so-called immaculate conception has something to do with the incarnation of Jesus. In fact this could be said to be an immaculate misconception. The Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin so that she could later bear the Son of God. In other words the immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary not of Jesus. Of course, if anyone would like to bet me a pint of Guinness that I’m wrong …
It pains me to reveal this in such a public fashion, as I have won many a pub bet on this subject, but your front-page item (Bay Times, 21 December 2006) on the parthenogenesis of Flora, the komodo dragon, perpetuates the common error that the so-called immaculate conception has something to do with the incarnation of Jesus. In fact this could be said to be an immaculate misconception. The Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin so that she could later bear the Son of God. In other words the immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary not of Jesus. Of course, if anyone would like to bet me a pint of Guinness that I’m wrong …
17 December 2006
Smacking is a no win
Bay Times published this on Saturday, 16 December 2006.
A recent editorial, your columnists Richard Moore and Rosemary McLeod, and several of your correspondents continue to trot out the same old argument that in raising children corporal punishment equates to discipline and to spare the rod is to spoil the child. I can only assume that in the good old days, when every parent religiously smacked their children for misbehaviour, there was no youth crime, no wanton violence, no desecration of churches or graves. Please correct me if I have something wrong.
In my own experience, when I brought up my children without any corporal punishment, I was aware of a number of other parents of the same generation who also taught values without smacking. I spent a short time working for Social Welfare and I saw another side to life where most of the kids in state care had received more than their share of “hidings” from their parents. Presumably the children of the former group have grown up to be violent criminals through their parents’ negligence, while the kids in the latter group are pillars of the community thanks to those hidings. Or am I wrong again?
A recent editorial, your columnists Richard Moore and Rosemary McLeod, and several of your correspondents continue to trot out the same old argument that in raising children corporal punishment equates to discipline and to spare the rod is to spoil the child. I can only assume that in the good old days, when every parent religiously smacked their children for misbehaviour, there was no youth crime, no wanton violence, no desecration of churches or graves. Please correct me if I have something wrong.
In my own experience, when I brought up my children without any corporal punishment, I was aware of a number of other parents of the same generation who also taught values without smacking. I spent a short time working for Social Welfare and I saw another side to life where most of the kids in state care had received more than their share of “hidings” from their parents. Presumably the children of the former group have grown up to be violent criminals through their parents’ negligence, while the kids in the latter group are pillars of the community thanks to those hidings. Or am I wrong again?
Respect other beliefs
Bay Times published this on Thursday, 14 December 2006.
If Bill Capamagian (Bay Times 1 November) advocates teaching children about the Bible and the other diverse beliefs that people hold in our pluralist society then I have no problem with this. However if “Bible in Schools” means religious indoctrination which sets out to convert children to the beliefs of the teacher, then he is dishonest in pretending that this is done “so that our children can at least be aware of our spiritual history.”
Nor does Bill tell the whole truth when he says that teaching the Bible in schools is voluntary. Religious instruction and observance are illegal in state primary and intermediate schools. They happen when schools are declared “closed” and the children are handed over to Christian evangelists. Children have to opt out of this indoctrination and are usually supervised in the school library. Opting out requires some intervention from the parents and makes the “opt out” children feel different, the last thing any young child wants. Evangelists know this and kick up a fuss against any attempt to switch to “opt in”.
The issue here is not about Bill waivering in his Christian faith. It is about him respecting the rights of others to their own beliefs.
If Bill Capamagian (Bay Times 1 November) advocates teaching children about the Bible and the other diverse beliefs that people hold in our pluralist society then I have no problem with this. However if “Bible in Schools” means religious indoctrination which sets out to convert children to the beliefs of the teacher, then he is dishonest in pretending that this is done “so that our children can at least be aware of our spiritual history.”
Nor does Bill tell the whole truth when he says that teaching the Bible in schools is voluntary. Religious instruction and observance are illegal in state primary and intermediate schools. They happen when schools are declared “closed” and the children are handed over to Christian evangelists. Children have to opt out of this indoctrination and are usually supervised in the school library. Opting out requires some intervention from the parents and makes the “opt out” children feel different, the last thing any young child wants. Evangelists know this and kick up a fuss against any attempt to switch to “opt in”.
The issue here is not about Bill waivering in his Christian faith. It is about him respecting the rights of others to their own beliefs.
04 December 2006
Any crime link with harsh discipline?
Bay Times published my reply to their editorial on 30 November.
Your editorial (Bay Times, 22 November) blames “rising youth crime and wanton violence” on the outlawing of caning and the move away from enforcing discipline with a solid smack. Some of your correspondents blame the absence of prayer in schools. I’m sure others blame the Labor government. The thing they all have in common is the failure to provide any real evidence of a link between the problem and their pet cause. The best they can manage is the post hoc logical fallacy; they assume that if B follows A in time, then B must be caused by A.
The argument by reference to today’s community and business leaders could also apply to today’s leading criminals, who are also sure to have been smacked. Did this “help mould them into the people and leaders they are today”?
What would be interesting would be some research to see if there is any correlation, positive or negative, between corporal punishment and those responsible for the youth crime and wanton violence. Were these young people smacked at home or not? I know where I would put my money.
Your editorial (Bay Times, 22 November) blames “rising youth crime and wanton violence” on the outlawing of caning and the move away from enforcing discipline with a solid smack. Some of your correspondents blame the absence of prayer in schools. I’m sure others blame the Labor government. The thing they all have in common is the failure to provide any real evidence of a link between the problem and their pet cause. The best they can manage is the post hoc logical fallacy; they assume that if B follows A in time, then B must be caused by A.
The argument by reference to today’s community and business leaders could also apply to today’s leading criminals, who are also sure to have been smacked. Did this “help mould them into the people and leaders they are today”?
What would be interesting would be some research to see if there is any correlation, positive or negative, between corporal punishment and those responsible for the youth crime and wanton violence. Were these young people smacked at home or not? I know where I would put my money.
Religious Abuse
Bay Times published on Friday, 24 November 2006.
Margaret Muirhead (Bay Times 31 October) ignores my objections to religion in schools. Instead she chooses to answer what was clearly a rhetorical question designed to highlight the diversity of opinion in this area. According to the 2001 census that diversity includes 30% of New Zealanders who profess to have no religion at all. Given that many Christian parents will choose to send their children to religious schools, one can assume that the non-religious make up an even greater proportion of the state school population. It is surely arrogant and intolerant for State School Chaplaincy to seek to impose their worldview on this group, who have already chosen to reject religion. In fact some non-religious parents may well share the view of Richard Dawkins when he recently described religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse.
Margaret Muirhead (Bay Times 31 October) ignores my objections to religion in schools. Instead she chooses to answer what was clearly a rhetorical question designed to highlight the diversity of opinion in this area. According to the 2001 census that diversity includes 30% of New Zealanders who profess to have no religion at all. Given that many Christian parents will choose to send their children to religious schools, one can assume that the non-religious make up an even greater proportion of the state school population. It is surely arrogant and intolerant for State School Chaplaincy to seek to impose their worldview on this group, who have already chosen to reject religion. In fact some non-religious parents may well share the view of Richard Dawkins when he recently described religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse.
21 November 2006
Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity
Submission to the Human Rights Commissioner, 21 November 2006.
The introduction to the proposed statement acknowledges the recent growth of faith communities as a result of recent immigration from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. However it ignores the most significant factor in the last three censuses – the tremendous growth of those professing No Religion.
Moreover there is no section on freedom from religion. Some examples (in no particular order) of why this is needed:
- National anthems: God defend NZ and God save the Queen
- Flag: Union jack is composite of various crosses plus Southern Cross
- Prayer before parliament opens
- Assumption that witnesses and jurors will swear on the Bible in courts
- Churches pay no taxes
- Integration Act uses taxpayers’ money to fund religious schools
- No constitutional separation of church and state as in other countries
- Church services on state occasions, e.g. state funerals, ANZAC remembrance
- Promotion of religion is one of four justifications for charitable status; promotion of a non-religious alternative, e.g. secular humanism, is not
18 October 2006
Humanist moves in opposite way
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
