In this morning’s NZ Herald Robert Sirico complains about the restriction on proselytising by churches while doing welfare work contracted out by the US Government. The restriction stems from the constitutional separation of church and state in the USA. He would not have the same problem in New Zealand. The Charities Act 2005 grants charitable status not only for the relief of poverty, which most people think of as charity, but - conveniently for the churches – also for the advancement of religion.
The inclusion of advancement of religion as a charitable activity will probably surprise many Kiwis, especially the one million who indicated in the 2006 census that they have no religion. In effect they are subsidising beliefs which they do not support or may even be hostile toward: because the churches pay no tax, the rest must pay more.
This state subsidy for religion has enabled it to amass a huge fortune over the years and yet it is not available to the non-religious. It is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990 which forbids the Government from discriminating on the basis of religion or lack of religion. How can the law of NZ contradict itself like this? Beats me. Ask your MP.
27 September 2007
Volcano god
Sent to the New Zealand Herald on 27 September 2007:
Sigmund Freud and others theorised that the Jewish god Jahweh was originally a volcano god. Perhaps Ruapehu is angry that, with all the volcanos we have to choose from here in new Zealand, the majority of Kiwis worship one from the other side of the world. Maybe Yahweh is not the only jealous god.
Sigmund Freud and others theorised that the Jewish god Jahweh was originally a volcano god. Perhaps Ruapehu is angry that, with all the volcanos we have to choose from here in new Zealand, the majority of Kiwis worship one from the other side of the world. Maybe Yahweh is not the only jealous god.
04 June 2007
View from the bright side
The BOP Times published this on Friday, 1 June 2007.
Whereas most of the major wars in the world today are fought in the name of religion, I don’t know of any war that has ever been fought in the name of atheism as suggested by James Hood (BOP Times 15 May).
Atheist is a term used by an in-group (those who believe in a god) to define an out-group (those who do not). It says something about what a person does not believe in, but nothing about what they do believe in.
I admit to being an atheist, but I would prefer to describe myself as a Humanist, or a “bright”, the new term coined in the US to define someone with a naturalistic worldview.
Contrary to James Hood’s view, the values that we hold dear to our society do not come from Christianity. Most of these values originated in pagan Greece, were rediscovered in the Renaissance and came to fruition in the Enlightenment.
In over a thousand years while they held power throughout Europe, Christians failed to advance democracy, or enhance the status of women or slaves. Most of the advances Hood claims for Christianity in fact date from the Enlightenment.
And , by the way, Hitler was a Catholic.
Whereas most of the major wars in the world today are fought in the name of religion, I don’t know of any war that has ever been fought in the name of atheism as suggested by James Hood (BOP Times 15 May).
Atheist is a term used by an in-group (those who believe in a god) to define an out-group (those who do not). It says something about what a person does not believe in, but nothing about what they do believe in.
I admit to being an atheist, but I would prefer to describe myself as a Humanist, or a “bright”, the new term coined in the US to define someone with a naturalistic worldview.
Contrary to James Hood’s view, the values that we hold dear to our society do not come from Christianity. Most of these values originated in pagan Greece, were rediscovered in the Renaissance and came to fruition in the Enlightenment.
In over a thousand years while they held power throughout Europe, Christians failed to advance democracy, or enhance the status of women or slaves. Most of the advances Hood claims for Christianity in fact date from the Enlightenment.
And , by the way, Hitler was a Catholic.
11 May 2007
Unlikely Meeting
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
