Brash- A Leader the Nats Need
xlo
"Redbaiter" <nod...@mail.thanks> wrote in message
news:4054...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>
> Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
> justified.
>
<snip>
One might have thought that he was taking a moral stand on this issue.
With his strong Presbyterian beliefs, he is probably just scared his pants will
catch on fire when he stands at the pulpit.
Gib Bogle
> Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
> justified.
You have to give him credit for his principles and his guts. The
newspaper was rather silly to write that he "labelled Prime Minister
Helen Clark an atheist" - I'm sure she labels herself an atheist, at
least in private, and that's fine by me. I agree that for an atheist to
use a cathedral for a speech is pretty dubious, ethically.
Gib
Barry Phease
> You have to give him credit for his principles and his guts. The
> newspaper was rather silly to write that he "labelled Prime Minister
> Helen Clark an atheist" - I'm sure she labels herself an atheist, at
> least in private, and that's fine by me. I agree that for an atheist to
> use a cathedral for a speech is pretty dubious, ethically.
You meant that an atheist shouldn't speak to a christian audience in
their own setting? Should a non-rotarian not address a Rotary club?
An atheist is not necessarily anti-church. She is not a rationalist.
--
Barry Phease
xlo
news:c32gni$679$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
And why do you think that would be ethically dubious? Or, why is using a
cathedral for a political speech any more ethically dubious than attempting to
score political points by declining to use a cathedral for a polical speech?
IMO the fact that the church is usually a forum to literally preach to the
converted is one of the reasons why churches have historically been a breeding
ground for intolerance. (some still are)
Does Helen Clark label herself an "athiest"?
I am guessing that she might label herself agnostic.
Bob Howard
"Barry Phease" <bar...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.03.14....@es.co.nz...
>
> An atheist is not necessarily anti-church. She is not a rationalist.
I'll bet Helen strongly disagrees with you. She would claim she runs the
country on rational principles. Whether others agree is another matter.
I don't want to sound picky like my friend Brian Dooley but if you mean an
anti religious Rationalist I think you need to use the capital R.
Bob Howard.
Gib Bogle
> Does Helen Clark label herself an "athiest"?
> I am guessing that she might label herself agnostic.
We guess differently.
Gib
Mike Scott
wrotg:
>
>Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
>justified.
>
>Interesting that it is reported the National party tried to book
>the cathedral for a speech in 1999.
>
>This is a clear indication that Brash could well be the man to
>revive the Nationals. For too long the National Party has been a
>bunch of weak wishy washy vacillating politically correct
>compromisers.
>
>The Nationals under Brash's leadership could well amount to
>something after all.
>
>It is important that Brash's stand on principle is not
>undermined. The bunch of confused spineless idiots who took the
>National party to its recent low point should be banished
>forever from any positions of influence.
>
Amen to that, this country needs a strong National Party.
To get back some distinction between the main parties, back where they
belong, not falling in behind those leftist losers!
So far he's doing very well and not falling for any of the lefts usual
tricks.
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>Don Brash backs off cathedral speech
>
>15.03.2004
>
>
>National Party leader Don Brash has lashed out at Christchurch
>Cathedral and labelled Prime Minister Helen Clark an atheist in
>a reversal of his decision to accept a speaking invitation at
>the cathedral.
>
>A letter obtained by The Press newspaper shows a fiery Dr Brash
>has now spurned Dean Peter Beck's invitation.
>
>"Frankly, I have no enthusiasm for the task, especially as it is
>rather obvious that you made the belated offer only under
>pressure from parishioners after the Prime Minister's use of the
>cathedral for an overtly political speech.
>
>"You will be aware of my views that it is not appropriate for a
>cathedral to be used for such purposes, even leaving aside the
>Prime Minister's atheism, her abandonment of grace at state
>functions and her indifference to the institution of marriage.
>
>"Some might be unkind enough to suggest that this is a rather
>unholy alliance."
>
>Two weeks ago, Helen Clark was invited to speak about the social
>progress made since the 1998 Hikoi of Hope, but effectively
>kicked off an election campaign in a speech that also attacked
>Dr Brash and his party's call for policies and funding based on
>need, not race.
>
>Three other speakers were also invited to give their views -
>financial journalist Rod Oram, Ngai Tahu leader Mark Solomon and
>Bishop David Coles.
>
>Dr Brash told Dean Beck he would make speeches at "other
>suitable venues" on his vision for a "united New Zealand, where
>all people are treated as equals".
>
>"No doubt your own parishioners will have views on the speakers
>you have invited to this series.
>
>"I wish you well in dealing with the calls," Dr Brash said in
>his letter.
>
>Dean Beck was last night standing by his decision to invite Dr
>Brash and believed it was appropriate to give political speeches
>at the cathedral.
>
>"I believe the cathedral is the place where important issues
>that touch the soul of the nation can be discussed.
>
>"I made my invitation on the basis of responding to issues
>raised in the Prime Minister's speech.
>
>"I invited all the speakers to come to the cathedral and give
>their perspective [on progress since the Hikoi of Hope].
>
>"All speakers at the cathedral are asked to respect the
>sacredness of the place and look for a response to issues beyond
>party political lines. My understanding was that [Dr Brash] had
>agreed to come and he has obviously rethought that. That is his
>belief and everyone is entitled to that."
>
>Dr Brash has strong religious links. His father, Dr Alan Brash,
>was a Presbyterian minister and Moderator of the Presbyterian
>Church of New Zealand and his grandfather was also a moderator
>of the church.
>
>Last night he stood by his refusal to speak at the venue.
>
>"My initial reaction was to accept it but when I looked at the
>rest of the programme and thought a bit more about it, I decided
>not to speak," he said.
>
>"There was no chance of me giving a speech which was non-
>political because people would perceive whatever speech I gave
>as political and most people find political speeches in a
>cathedral offensive."
>
>The National Party has previously tried to use the cathedral for
>a political speech.
>
>In 1999, the party tried unsuccessfully to book the cathedral
>for a speaking engagement.
>
>Dr Brash said today he was unaware of this.
>
>"That surprises me and I certainly wasn't aware of it, but then
>I was not involved in politics at the time."
steve
> Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
> justified.
The Bishop of the cathedral didn't think so.
He said the church has a role in society....and he won't have it defined for
him by Don Brash.
steve
Why?
The church is the decider of that....and they are in favour of open and
frank discussion in a way that Brash clearly is not - as he wants to
exclude the churches from the debate.
Brash wants to exclude the churhches becasue they have some very convincing
arguments that oppose Brash's own appeal to ignorance.
steve
Being rational is not the same as being a "rationalist".
...in the same way being a social person does not make one a socialist.
steve
No.
Brash is deliberately trying to exclude the churches from the debate becasue
they don't agree with him.
I heard his comments to the ffect that churches should not be invovled in
polics.....which presumably means - as far as he is concerned - that NO
politicians should be allowed to speak in a church.
His monastic views are inconsistent with the approach and philosophy of the
modern churches who DO sdee themselves as activily invovled in the
society....and advocating stances consistent with Christian principles and
values.
Very little in the National Party or ACT economic policy is consistent with
Christian values of community and sharaing.
steve
No.
Brash is deliberately trying to exclude the churches from the debate because
they don't agree with him.
I heard his comments to the effect that churches should not be involved in
politics.....which presumably means - as far as he is concerned - that NO
politicians should be allowed to speak in a church.
His monastic views are inconsistent with the approach and philosophy of the
modern churches who DO see themselves as activily involved in society....and
advocating stances consistent with Christian principles and values.
Very little in the 'me-first' National Party or ACT economic policy is
consistent with Christian values of community and sharing.
This is why Brash would like to remove the churches from the debate. They
will be the natural enemy of the dishonest, greedy and selfish.
Patrick Dunford
<_ad5c.1432$u%1.22...@news02.tsnz.net>, steve <o...@ok.org.nz> didst
uttereth...
Hardly surprising that Clark went there in the first place considering
that the Christchurch Cathedral is a bastion of the liberal stream of
Anglicanism
John B
snip
>
> This is why Brash would like to remove the churches from the debate. They
> will be the natural enemy of the dishonest, greedy and selfish.
Nothing wrong with being greedy or selfish. Just with being dishonest. But
lump them all together and what do you get?
You Steve are one fucking dishonest little twerp.
Funny thing, the church is one of the biggest bunch of greedy, selfish and
totally dishonest organisations in the world. They produce nothing, they are
parasites. They lust after everything everyone else has. They con people
into believing that a long-haired hallucinating hippie who never did a days
work in his life is their "saviour" and then get them to pay a sizeable
portion of their income to be saved.
The Catholics used to castrate young boys so the could sing in the choirs
longer. Lovely people for sure.
John B
Patrick Dunford
<cdd5c.1433$u%1.22...@news02.tsnz.net>, steve <o...@ok.org.nz> didst
uttereth...
> Gib Bogle wrote:
What... this is only one church and there are plenty of opportunities for
them in the political process.
Brash has wisely decided not to cause further offence to conservative
Anglicans because this issue of allowing the cathedral to be a speaking
venue for all and sundry has caused quite a rift in the Anglican
community in Christchurch.
Patrick Dunford
<ojd5c.1436$u%1.22...@news02.tsnz.net>, steve <o...@ok.org.nz> didst
uttereth...
> xlo wrote:
>
> >
> > "Redbaiter" <nod...@mail.thanks> wrote in message
> > news:4054...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> >>
> >> Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
> >> justified.
> >>
> > <snip>
> >
> > One might have thought that he was taking a moral stand on this issue.
> >
> > With his strong Presbyterian beliefs, he is probably just scared his pants
> > will catch on fire when he stands at the pulpit.
>
> No.
>
> Brash is deliberately trying to exclude the churches from the debate becasue
> they don't agree with him.
>
> I heard his comments to the ffect that churches should not be invovled in
> polics.....which presumably means - as far as he is concerned - that NO
> politicians should be allowed to speak in a church.
>
> His monastic views are inconsistent with the approach and philosophy of the
> modern churches who DO sdee themselves as activily invovled in the
> society....and advocating stances consistent with Christian principles and
> values.
You do not know that the Anglican church is quite divided over the use of
the Cathedral for the Dalai LLama and the like. Clark is hardly likely to
have endeared any conservative Anglicans by using the pulpit for
political purposes.
> Very little in the National Party or ACT economic policy is consistent with
> Christian values of community and sharaing.
National isn't far off a lot of Christian values, like self reliance and
hard work. I don't think you really know what Christian values are.
Labour had a far greater opportunity to represent Christian values back
in 1935, when some of their major leaders were Christians, than they do
today with their many anti Christian policies.
Patrick Dunford
<Pld5c.1438$u%1.22...@news02.tsnz.net>, steve <st...@unowut.org.nz>
didst uttereth...
> xlo wrote:
>
> >
> > "Redbaiter" <nod...@mail.thanks> wrote in message
> > news:4054...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> >>
> >> Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
> >> justified.
> >>
> > <snip>
> >
> > One might have thought that he was taking a moral stand on this issue.
> >
> > With his strong Presbyterian beliefs, he is probably just scared his pants
> > will catch on fire when he stands at the pulpit.
>
> No.
>
> Brash is deliberately trying to exclude the churches from the debate because
> they don't agree with him.
>
> I heard his comments to the effect that churches should not be involved in
> politics.....which presumably means - as far as he is concerned - that NO
> politicians should be allowed to speak in a church.
>
> His monastic views are inconsistent with the approach and philosophy of the
> modern churches who DO see themselves as activily involved in society....and
> advocating stances consistent with Christian principles and values.
Only modern churches fit this description do they? Liberal churches, HA!
> Very little in the 'me-first' National Party or ACT economic policy is
> consistent with Christian values of community and sharing.
Core Christian values and beliefs are consistent with a centre-right
political outlook. That is things like self reliance, hard work, not
having the government waste your taxation dollars on fruitcake causes,
free choice in education, freedom to run your own business, strong
justice system etc. There are also of course strong moral values which
tend to find a greater level of expression in centre right parties than
those of the left.
You are confusing the traditional Christian values with those of liberal
churches, most of which have now sold out to become arms of the
government's social policies, abandoning their traditional beliefs in
order to keep going on government money.
Jason M
>xlo wrote:
>
>> "Redbaiter" <nod...@mail.thanks> wrote in message
>> news:4054...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>>>
>>> Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
>>> justified.
>> One might have thought that he was taking a moral stand on this issue.
>>
>> With his strong Presbyterian beliefs, he is probably just scared his pants
>> will catch on fire when he stands at the pulpit.
>
>No.
>
>Brash is deliberately trying to exclude the churches from the debate because
>they don't agree with him.
>
>I heard his comments to the effect that churches should not be involved in
>politics.....which presumably means - as far as he is concerned - that NO
>politicians should be allowed to speak in a church.
>
>His monastic views are inconsistent with the approach and philosophy of the
>modern churches who DO see themselves as activily involved in society....and
>advocating stances consistent with Christian principles and values.
>
>Very little in the 'me-first' National Party or ACT economic policy is
>consistent with Christian values of community and sharing.
>
>This is why Brash would like to remove the churches from the debate. They
>will be the natural enemy of the dishonest, greedy and selfish.
The National Party don't seem to want the religious vote any more.
Brownlee's interview together with Richard Randerson, the assistant
Anglican bishop of Auckland, on National Radio on 1st March has not
been reported properly. Have you seen the "pompous, pious" quote
anywhere in the media yet?
Brownlee: "Well I think actually, if you read the release that was
put out by the bishops, it's only fair to describe it as a pompous,
pious proclamation that demonstrates extremely weak and simple
thinking, and frankly Linda, it's the reason why congregations
continue to dwindle in this country. These are guys who are now
claiming some sort of a leadership role who were silent on the
prostitution bill that now sees children in my city standing on the
streets, were silent on the drinking age that sees children
increasingly having alcohol problems, silent on the civil unions bill
that attacks the status of marriage in this country and silent
frankly, on the appalling abortion statistics that are [inaudible] in
this country as well. I don't think they've got a lot of credibility
and I don't think they're connected to the concerns that average New
Zealanders have about this stuff."
P.S. Brownlee is incorrect in his assertion that the bishops have not
spoken up about the issues above.
John Cawston
"Jason M" <jma...@very.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:405573e6...@news.akl.ihugultra.co.nz...
> The National Party don't seem to want the religious vote any more.
> Brownlee's interview together with Richard Randerson, the assistant
> Anglican bishop of Auckland, on National Radio on 1st March has not
> been reported properly. Have you seen the "pompous, pious" quote
> anywhere in the media yet?
>
> Brownlee: "Well I think actually, if you read the release that was
> put out by the bishops, it's only fair to describe it as a pompous,
> pious proclamation that demonstrates extremely weak and simple
> thinking, and frankly Linda, it's the reason why congregations
> continue to dwindle in this country. These are guys who are now
> claiming some sort of a leadership role who were silent on the
> prostitution bill that now sees children in my city standing on the
> streets, were silent on the drinking age that sees children
> increasingly having alcohol problems, silent on the civil unions bill
> that attacks the status of marriage in this country and silent
> frankly, on the appalling abortion statistics that are [inaudible] in
> this country as well. I don't think they've got a lot of credibility
> and I don't think they're connected to the concerns that average New
> Zealanders have about this stuff."
>
> P.S. Brownlee is incorrect in his assertion that the bishops have not
> spoken up about the issues above.
So you will now publish their outraged rebuttals of his accusations?
JC
Agnes Lovejoy Prune
decided against speaking in the Chch Cathedral - his own decision about
his own action - but I don't think he did anything that would suggest a
wish to prohibit the churches making their own contribution to the
ongoing discussion about the best way to assist the disadvantaged in
society.
A L P
Agnes Lovejoy Prune
> xlo wrote:
>
>
>>"Redbaiter" <nod...@mail.thanks> wrote in message
>>news:4054...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>>
>>>Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
>>>justified.
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>One might have thought that he was taking a moral stand on this issue.
>>
>>With his strong Presbyterian beliefs, he is probably just scared his pants
>>will catch on fire when he stands at the pulpit.
>
>
> No.
>
> Brash is deliberately trying to exclude the churches from the debate because
> they don't agree with him.
>
> I heard his comments to the effect that churches should not be involved in
> politics.....which presumably means - as far as he is concerned - that NO
> politicians should be allowed to speak in a church.
I'd have thought that saying the churches should not be involved in
politics means they should not give their support, or attempt to push
their congregation to vote to one particular party. I.e. they should
avoid being partisan. Thisis not the same as saying that they should
not take a vigorous role, in both action and discussion, in social
issues. If the discussion should convince those who hear it that the
best course for the well-being of the country is to go *this* way
forward, and it so happens that *this* is the policy of Political Party
X, then party X will get their vote. That's not the same as the priest
telling you to make sure you vote for Party X because that's the one the
church favours.
A L P
>
> His monastic views are inconsistent with the approach and philosophy of the
> modern churches who DO see themselves as activily involved in society....and
> advocating stances consistent with Christian principles and values.
>
> Very little in the 'me-first' National Party or ACT economic policy is
> consistent with Christian values of community and sharing.
>
> This is why Brash would like to remove the churches from the debate. They
> will be the natural enemy of the dishonest, greedy and selfish.
>
Come on, he's not an idiot, whatever you think of his politics. He
knows as well as we do that the churches have the same right to be
involved in discussion of values as any other person or organisation.
Next thing it'll be "Brash would like to have three wishes granted by
Lord Lucifer so that he can become Prime Minister next week, get a Cloak
of Invisibility and become Dominator for Life of the World Domination
League."
A L P
Roger Dewhurst
>
>
> An atheist is not necessarily anti-church. She is not a rationalist.
She is not rational. That is a better description.
R
xlo
Tarla
wrote:
>"steve"
>
>snip
>>
>> This is why Brash would like to remove the churches from the debate. They
>> will be the natural enemy of the dishonest, greedy and selfish.
>
>Nothing wrong with being greedy or selfish. Just with being dishonest. But
>lump them all together and what do you get?
>
>You Steve are one fucking dishonest little twerp.
>
>Funny thing, the church is one of the biggest bunch of greedy, selfish and
>totally dishonest organisations in the world. They produce nothing, they are
>parasites. They lust after everything everyone else has. They con people
>into believing that a long-haired hallucinating hippie who never did a days
>work in his life is their "saviour" and then get them to pay a sizeable
>portion of their income to be saved.
I must protest this villification even though I am not a Christian.
Jesus was a carpenter and worked until he was 30 and took up his
Ministry.
Tarla
****
"If Martha Stewart had just lied about WMDs she’d be a free woman today."
--Jay Leno,
Brian Dooley
Somebody called?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Brian Dooley
Remember General Booth - why should the Devil have all the best
tunes.
Brian Harmer
>I heard his comments to the effect that churches should not be involved in
>politics.....which presumably means - as far as he is concerned - that NO
>politicians should be allowed to speak in a church.
This baffles me. Those who are not religious often come up with this,
suggesting that religious people should stick to religion. Without
attempting to propagate any particular religious system, most
religions are about the way people live every aspect of their lives.
There is no way that a religious person can separate his or her
beliefs from any other part of life, including politics.
Arising from my beliefs, an essential attribute of my life is a
commitment to justice. That commitment unavoidably intrudes on my
political beliefs.
Brian Harmer
>And you guess wrong
XLO wins. Helen Clark declared herself agnostic according to this
morning's DomPost
Tarla
Love it. How many national leaders would have the strength to declare
such?
Tarla
****
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
--James Madison
Bob Howard
"Patrick Dunford" <patrick...@nz.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ac03488f...@news.paradise.net.nz...
>
> National isn't far off a lot of Christian values, like self reliance and
> hard work. I don't think you really know what Christian values are.
> Labour had a far greater opportunity to represent Christian values back
> in 1935, when some of their major leaders were Christians, than they do
> today with their many anti Christian policies.
Dogooders confuse handouts and helping people to help themselves. No party
wants to abolish basic welfare.
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard
"steve" <st...@unowut.org.nz> wrote in message
news:Pld5c.1438$u%1.22...@news02.tsnz.net...
>>
> Very little in the 'me-first' National Party or ACT economic policy is
> consistent with Christian values of community and sharing.
>
> This is why Brash would like to remove the churches from the debate. They
> will be the natural enemy of the dishonest, greedy and selfish.
What rubbish Steve! If you read Brash's speeches you will see he wants a
better standard of living for all New Zealanders. He wants all workers to
have tax cuts. He wants better education and a better health service. He has
just as much concern for ordinary people as has Helen. The difference is he
knows we have to achieve before the lower earners can benefit whereas Helen
thinks she can just take from the higher earners and redistribute.
Ask yourself why would National want to uphold the greedy and selfish. What
National wants to do is uphold the achievers. The high achievers contribute
out of proportion to the economy. Hating the "rich" is the politics of envy.
Bob Howard.
David Pears
wrote:
>I must protest this villification even though I am not a Christian.
>Jesus was a carpenter and worked until he was 30 and took up his
>Ministry.
I've been thinking of building some bookshelves, since all the kitset
shop ones eventually sag under the weight of books. Do you think if I
prayed hard enough, he'd pop around and do the job for me?
David
David Pears
<brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>This baffles me. Those who are not religious often come up with this,
>suggesting that religious people should stick to religion. Without
>attempting to propagate any particular religious system, most
>religions are about the way people live every aspect of their lives.
>There is no way that a religious person can separate his or her
>beliefs from any other part of life, including politics.
>Arising from my beliefs, an essential attribute of my life is a
>commitment to justice. That commitment unavoidably intrudes on my
>political beliefs.
I think this is because there is an implicit "we're speaking on behalf
of god" that people object to. Or explicit, if you're talking about
the Pope's mumblings.
David
Brian Harmer
<dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote:
>I think this is because there is an implicit "we're speaking on behalf
>of god" that people object to. Or explicit, if you're talking about
>the Pope's mumblings.
Straw man, David. In the context of the present discussion, it has no
relevance.
David Pears
<brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>I think this is because there is an implicit "we're speaking on behalf
>>of god" that people object to. Or explicit, if you're talking about
>>the Pope's mumblings.
>
>Straw man, David. In the context of the present discussion, it has no
>relevance.
Do the church leaders claim to speak as private citizens (as you and I
do), or do they claim to speak on behalf of the church?
If the latter, then what do they claim as the moral authority of the
church that means their comments should be listened to?... it isn't as
if they're representing members as an association or union does, or
representing knowledge as a professional organisation or university
does.
David
Tarla
I think you'd have to pay him Union scale. Even with the holes in his
hands, he's probably not a scab.
Gib Bogle
What Helen Clark declares to the press and what Helen Clark believes,
and says to her friends, could be two different things. Or is this an
outrageous suggestion - that a politician might not be totally honest?
It is a fact that to declare oneself an atheist would be a bad political
move. Many ordinary people who are really atheists find it more politic
to claim to be agnostics.
Gib
Gib Bogle
> Love it. How many national leaders would have the strength to declare
> such?
You see that as strength? To me it is just mealy-mouthed, sitting on
the fence. I'd put money on Helen Clark being an atheist.
Gib
Tarla
I do since most politicians profess to be Christians and never act
like it. At least Helen admits to being a part of what is only 5% of
the population.
Brian Dooley
Anglican bishops do not get outraged, John. A gentle reprimand is
more their style.
The last English bishop to get outraged was Becket, and look what
happened to him.
Gib Bogle
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:21:02 +1300, Gib Bogle
> <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>Tarla wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Love it. How many national leaders would have the strength to declare
>>>such?
>>
>>You see that as strength? To me it is just mealy-mouthed, sitting on
>>the fence. I'd put money on Helen Clark being an atheist.
>
>
> I do since most politicians profess to be Christians and never act
> like it. At least Helen admits to being a part of what is only 5% of
> the population.
She had no choice in admitting (wrong word, it implies being guilty of
something) at least this. She has led the effort to remove religious
references from Parliament (e.g. from the swearing in). For her to
claim now to be religious would be laughable.
Gib
Tarla
<bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
But she could waffle. She could say, "Although I believe in a Higher
Power, I am not affiliated with any formal religious group." or
something equally as cowardly.
steve
> Verily, verily, on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:46:03 +1300 in nz.general article
> <_ad5c.1432$u%1.22...@news02.tsnz.net>, steve <o...@ok.org.nz> didst
> uttereth...
>
>> Redbaiter wrote:
>>
>> > Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
>> > justified.
>>
>> The Bishop of the cathedral didn't think so.
>>
>> He said the church has a role in society....and he won't have it defined
>> for him by Don Brash.
>
> Hardly surprising that Clark went there in the first place considering
> that the Christchurch Cathedral is a bastion of the liberal stream of
> Anglicanism
Christianity IS "liberal".
Any so-called "conservative" these is - almost by definition - NOT a
Christian.
Christ's message has nothing whatever in common with
devil-take-the-hind-most market Darwinism.
steve
> Verily, verily, on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:48:23 +1300 in nz.general article
> <cdd5c.1433$u%1.22...@news02.tsnz.net>, steve <o...@ok.org.nz> didst
> uttereth...
>
>> Gib Bogle wrote:
>>
>> > Redbaiter wrote:
>> >> Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
>> >> justified.
>> >
>> > You have to give him credit for his principles and his guts. The
>> > newspaper was rather silly to write that he "labelled Prime Minister
>> > Helen Clark an atheist" - I'm sure she labels herself an atheist, at
>> > least in private, and that's fine by me. I agree that for an atheist
>> > to use a cathedral for a speech is pretty dubious, ethically.
>> >
>> > Gib
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> The church is the decider of that....and they are in favour of open and
>> frank discussion in a way that Brash clearly is not - as he wants to
>> exclude the churches from the debate.
>>
>> Brash wants to exclude the churhches becasue they have some very
>> convincing arguments that oppose Brash's own appeal to ignorance.
>
> What... this is only one church and there are plenty of opportunities for
> them in the political process.
What do you mean "this is only one church"? That makes no sense.
> Brash has wisely decided not to cause further offence to conservative
> Anglicans because this issue of allowing the cathedral to be a speaking
> venue for all and sundry has caused quite a rift in the Anglican
> community in Christchurch.
Brash is trying to tell the Anglican church what it can and can't
do.....which is both arrogant and inappropriate.
If he is this arrogant in Opposition, what the hell would he be like as PM?
I hope we never find out.
steve
> I don't think he "wants to exclude the churches" does he? He personally
> decided against speaking in the Chch Cathedral - his own decision about
> his own action - but I don't think he did anything that would suggest a
> wish to prohibit the churches making their own contribution to the
> ongoing discussion about the best way to assist the disadvantaged in
> society.
>
> A L P
I heard what he said on the radio...and clearly he saw no role for the
church in politics. He said churches are a place for prayer and
worship....unilaterally defining for Christchurch Anglicans what they can
and can't do with their own church. It was clear to me he thought they had
no role beyond prayer and worship - not just as buildings, but as
institutions.
steve
>> XLO wins. Helen Clark declared herself agnostic according to this
>> morning's DomPost
>
> What Helen Clark declares to the press and what Helen Clark believes,
> and says to her friends, could be two different things. Or is this an
> outrageous suggestion - that a politician might not be totally honest?
.....
Alas....you'd have to prove it. How can you do that?
steve
That would mean she KNEW - with certainty - there was no God.
Maybe she is inclined to think there isn't one.....but at the same time does
not KNOW with certainty.
Such a person would be an agnostic.
John Cawston
"Brian Harmer" <brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:pq2c505vjk6usvils...@4ax.com...
And I'll bet that most NZers would side with Garibaldi.. and a lot of
Muslims too.
The invitation to Clark was offered under the banner of "Five years to Mark
the Hikoi of Hope". The Anglican organised march to protest against National
and what was seen as poverty. In other words, Clark was offered a platform
to speak under a blatantly political banner by the churches. Against a
Canterbury increase in soup kitchens under her Govt, Clark was encouraged to
deliver a political speech by the churches to forestall the impact of Brash.
Not too surprising as the churches have basically given up on Pakeha as a
source of long term income as weekly church attendance has dropped to around
10% of the population.
JC
steve
>
> "Barry Phease" <bar...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.03.14....@es.co.nz...
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:58:07 +1300, Gib Bogle wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> An atheist is not necessarily anti-church. She is not a rationalist.
>
> She is not rational. That is a better description.
>
> R
You should have added a smiley. Clark is among the most rational PMs we've
had in a generation.
steve
You can fall for all that baffle-gab if you like...I've seem what it means
before and I'm not buying it.
It means:
- selling off the state-owned power providers to the highest bidder - so the
profits go overseas instead of into the pockets of Kiwi taxpayers.
- dismantling state provision of universal health care.
- making their mates rich by taking assets away from the people of New
Zealand and selling them to their buddies so they can empty our pockets
ever more effectively.
We've SEEN all this before.
You must be an amnesiac to ready to go for it yet again.
steve
I agree....and so did the two commentators (Anglican and Catholic) talking
to Linda Clark on NatRad this morning.
Both had been backers of the Hikoi of Hope....and overtly political capaign
if ever there was one....and a campaign firmly rooted in REAL Christian
values.
steve
> And I'll bet that most NZers would side with Garibaldi.. and a lot of
> Muslims too.
>
> The invitation to Clark was offered under the banner of "Five years to
> Mark the Hikoi of Hope". The Anglican organised march to protest against
> National and what was seen as poverty. In other words, Clark was offered a
> platform to speak under a blatantly political banner by the churches.
The Catholic Church backed the Hikoi of Hope, too....as their spokesperson
on NatRad this morning made plain.
> Against a Canterbury increase in soup kitchens under her Govt, Clark was
> encouraged to deliver a political speech by the churches to forestall the
> impact of Brash. Not too surprising as the churches have basically given
> up on Pakeha as a source of long term income as weekly church attendance
> has dropped to around 10% of the population.
>
> JC
I'm not sure the churches are quite as venal as you may be....
steve
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:02:23 +1300, Brian Harmer
> <brian....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>>I think this is because there is an implicit "we're speaking on behalf
>>>of god" that people object to. Or explicit, if you're talking about
>>>the Pope's mumblings.
>>
>>Straw man, David. In the context of the present discussion, it has no
>>relevance.
>
> Do the church leaders claim to speak as private citizens (as you and I
> do), or do they claim to speak on behalf of the church?
Neither. They speak and act based on values they collectively identify as
being "Christian". If you want a more detailed explanation of values, read
the four gospels and catch up with Christ's message. He admonished all to
act on those values.
That would certainly include his most ardent followers - the churches that
carry out his teachings today.
steve
> Brownlee: "Well I think actually, if you read the release that was
> put out by the bishops, it's only fair to describe it as a pompous,
> pious proclamation that demonstrates extremely weak and simple
> thinking, and frankly Linda, it's the reason why congregations
> continue to dwindle in this country. These are guys who are now
> claiming some sort of a leadership role who were silent on the
> prostitution bill that now sees children in my city standing on the
> streets, were silent on the drinking age that sees children
> increasingly having alcohol problems, silent on the civil unions bill
> that attacks the status of marriage in this country and silent
> frankly, on the appalling abortion statistics that are [inaudible] in
> this country as well. I don't think they've got a lot of credibility
> and I don't think they're connected to the concerns that average New
> Zealanders have about this stuff."
>
> P.S. Brownlee is incorrect in his assertion that the bishops have not
> spoken up about the issues above.
But, like most National MPs, he doesn't give a steaming turd what the truth
is.....and prefers to rely on the ignorance and the prejudice of the
listeners to allow his errors of fact be widely believed to be "true"....
Much like his boss and his bogus message of Maori "privilege".
steve
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:55:01 +1300, steve <o...@ok.org.nz> wrote:
>
>>xlo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Redbaiter" <nod...@mail.thanks> wrote in message
>>> news:4054...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>>>>
>>>> Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
>>>> justified.
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> One might have thought that he was taking a moral stand on this issue.
>>>
>>> With his strong Presbyterian beliefs, he is probably just scared his
>>> pants will catch on fire when he stands at the pulpit.
>>
>>No.
>>
>>Brash is deliberately trying to exclude the churches from the debate
>>becasue they don't agree with him.
>
> Good God you invent things.
I interpret what I hear. That is what Brash's comments meant to me.
>>I heard his comments to the ffect that churches should not be invovled in
>>polics.....which presumably means - as far as he is concerned - that NO
>>politicians should be allowed to speak in a church.
>
> Now Steve is a mind reader. Never mind Brash has said that he
> respects the Church leaders have a different view on the Treaty - he
> just doesn't believe their views should be forced on all NZers.
From the pulpits of their own churches?
Thanks. You just proved me right.
steve
>> His monastic views are inconsistent with the approach and philosophy of
>> the modern churches who DO sdee themselves as activily invovled in the
>> society....and advocating stances consistent with Christian principles
>> and values.
>
> You do not know that the Anglican church is quite divided over the use of
> the Cathedral for the Dalai LLama and the like. Clark is hardly likely to
> have endeared any conservative Anglicans by using the pulpit for
> political purposes.
I know nothing of the sort.
>> Very little in the National Party or ACT economic policy is consistent
>> with Christian values of community and sharaing.
>
> National isn't far off a lot of Christian values, like self reliance and
> hard work.
Where did Jesus talk about those?
> I don't think you really know what Christian values are.
I know very well what they are....
> Labour had a far greater opportunity to represent Christian values back
> in 1935, when some of their major leaders were Christians, than they do
> today with their many anti Christian policies.
Their policies aren't "anti-Christian"....they are anti some of the
accretions that have attached themselves to certain Christian
sects....which have nothing whatever to do with Christ's message.
"hard work and self-reliance" isn't a strong theme in the four gospels.
Yet you seem to think it is.
Odd.
steve
> Dogooders confuse handouts and helping people to help themselves. No party
> wants to abolish basic welfare.
>
Christ was just another "dogooder"....and that's why you, as a national
party supporter, are part of that group of people who may profess to be
Christian...(if you do).....yet act in a way inconsistent with the
teachings of Christ.
A hypocrisy so deep and wide you can't even see it - standing as you are at
the bottom of the chasm.
John Cawston
"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:2kjc50584kqup2nkt...@4ax.com...
I would have said that his King was the more outraged. And *then* look what
happened to Becket.
Brash has a bunch of Knights Templars on his trail.
JC
xlo
> What Helen Clark declares to the press and what Helen Clark believes,
> and says to her friends, could be two different things. Or is this an
> outrageous suggestion - that a politician might not be totally honest?
> It is a fact that to declare oneself an atheist would be a bad political
> move. Many ordinary people who are really atheists find it more politic
> to claim to be agnostics.
>
> Gib
I disagree with you.
To declare yourself an athiest, when we live in a universe that we struggle to
comprehend the scale of, know only a little of how it works, and do not even
know where to start looking for the answer to "why?", would seem to be a closed
minded and unwise position in which to place yourself. I rather suspect that
there are many people who call themselves atheists, who are in fact agnostics.
Gib Bogle
Nothing is known with certainty, even that the sun will rise tomorrow.
A theist believes that a God (or Gods) determines what happens in the
universe, an atheist doesn't. An agnostic thinks maybe a God is running
the show. Certainly nobody knows that there is a God - such a thing is
unknowable. Religious folk are agnostics who play safe by saying that
they believe, though they still act as if they don't. Agnostics are
quasi-atheists who hedge their bets by saying they're not sure.
I'm with Laplace. When he published his theory of the formation of the
Solar System, Napoleon Bonaparte asked him where God fit into his
theory. Laplace replied, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis."
Gib
geoffm
>
>You can fall for all that baffle-gab if you like...I've seem what it means
>before and I'm not buying it.
>
>It means:
>
>- selling off the state-owned power providers to the highest bidder - so the
>profits go overseas instead of into the pockets of Kiwi taxpayers.
Youmean the 3 out of 4 power genreating companies that are owned by
the State are sending their profits offshore? Does the IRD know about
this? Is the Cook ISlands involved?
>- dismantling state provision of universal health care.
Happening now under PatricK F's Great and Good Government by default.
Insufficient funding acheives the same ends.
>- making their mates rich by taking assets away from the people of New
>Zealand and selling them to their buddies so they can empty our pockets
>ever more effectively.
>
>We've SEEN all this before.
So what major changes ahs Labour done - nothing. Telecom is still a
monopoly, gouging the public. Sure, Jim Anderton has set up a bank in
opposition to the NZ owned Credit Unions, but I don't think that is
what you meant.
Geoff
Bob Howard
"steve" <o...@ok.org.nz> wrote in message
news:E1w5c.1605$u%1.24...@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> Christ was just another "dogooder"....and that's why you, as a national
> party supporter, are part of that group of people who may profess to be
> Christian...(if you do).....yet act in a way inconsistent with the
> teachings of Christ.
How can you have the cheek to say I act in a selfish way? How the hell do
you know how I act? However I am not Christian. I am an atheist. As for the
bible don't forget when it was written there was no such thing as social
welfare. The people of the Middle East at that time were like the people of
Bangladesh today. The character Jesus was exhorting people to show concern
for the poor. The poor, sick and disabled had nothing except the goodwill of
family and people. Jesus looms so large in Western religion that other
people in the ancient world equally concerned with the poor are overlooked.
>
> A hypocrisy so deep and wide you can't even see it - standing as you are
at
> the bottom of the chasm.
Such judgement! It is clear here and in other Western countries what
overgenerous welfare does to people. Corso, an international welfare agency
now disbanded, used as it's motto "give a man a fish and you feed him for a
day. Teach him to fish and he will feed himself forever." I subscribe to
that. That means requiring welfare beneficiaries to contribute some work to
society or to attend training schemes and do their best to get a regular
job.
Don't bother with your Labour inspired crocodile tears.
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard.
Brian Harmer
<bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Nothing is known with certainty, even that the sun will rise tomorrow.
>A theist believes that a God (or Gods) determines what happens in the
>universe,
I'm a theist. That's not what I believe.
> an atheist doesn't.
So that's one thing we have in common
>An agnostic thinks maybe a God is running
>the show. Certainly nobody knows that there is a God - such a thing is
>unknowable.
Thomas Aquinas (author of Summa Theologica) disagrees with you
>Religious folk are agnostics who play safe by saying that
>they believe, though they still act as if they don't.
Keep playing your silly games if you wish, but it does your position
no good at all to misrepresent what others believe and then attempt to
mock them for it.
>Agnostics are
>quasi-atheists who hedge their bets by saying they're not sure.
>I'm with Laplace. When he published his theory of the formation of the
>Solar System, Napoleon Bonaparte asked him where God fit into his
>theory. Laplace replied, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis."
That's fine. I wish you happiness in your position.
Bob Howard
>>
> But, like most National MPs, he doesn't give a steaming turd what the
truth
> is.....and prefers to rely on the ignorance and the prejudice of the
> listeners to allow his errors of fact be widely believed to be "true"....
>
> Much like his boss and his bogus message of Maori "privilege".
Now you are showing your true leftist style ignorance, prejudice and
propaganda.
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard
>
> You can fall for all that baffle-gab if you like...I've seem what it means
> before and I'm not buying it.
>
> It means:
>
> - selling off the state-owned power providers to the highest bidder - so
the
> profits go overseas instead of into the pockets of Kiwi taxpayers.
>
> - dismantling state provision of universal health care.
>
> - making their mates rich by taking assets away from the people of New
> Zealand and selling them to their buddies so they can empty our pockets
> ever more effectively.
>
> We've SEEN all this before.
>
> You must be an amnesiac to ready to go for it yet again.
You've been taking lessons from Janice. Just show me how they are going to
dismantle state health care. All I have ever heard even from ACT is to make
more use of the private sector in partnership for efficiency. But that would
be too reasonable for a Labour supporter.
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard.
Ashley
> Tarla wrote:
>
> > Love it. How many national leaders would have the strength to declare
> > such?
>
> You see that as strength? To me it is just mealy-mouthed, sitting on
> the fence.
Why? Do you know for certain that there is no God, no existence we are not
aware of (there's the trap) nothing other than this? You can't. And if you
can't, how can anyone call themselves an atheist?
Yes, I know many do, but I don't see that as entirely rational. Me, I'm
99.99% certain there is no God or afterlife, that this is it. But, as I know
only this life, I must allow for the possibility that I am wrong.
Therefore I am agnostic.
Agnes Lovejoy Prune
There's that same "I'm right because I believe I'm right therefore I'm
more right than the rest of you so don't bother to disagree with me
because if you do, you're wrong."
A L P
Bob Howard
>>
> Christ's message has nothing whatever in common with
> devil-take-the-hind-most market Darwinism.
Hasn't it? Since the start of the industrial evolution workers have
gradually enjoyed higher and higher living standards and more importantly
more respect. Concern for work site safety and the welfare of workers has
gradually increased. Isn't that Christianity? It is certainly the best
aspects of humanism.
Wouldn't Jesus have approved of good employers? Not all adherents of free
capitalism are greedy money grubbers.
Bob Howard.
Joy
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:c3614n$h2n$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Government has taken the place of religion in peoples lives and Clark
fancies herself at it's head. What happens to a nation which has lost it's
faith? Do the citizens become lemmings without a hope, blown about by
endless windy lies?
Joy
Gib Bogle
> Atheists are the mirror-image of fundamentalist Christians, aren't they?
> There's that same "I'm right because I believe I'm right therefore I'm
> more right than the rest of you so don't bother to disagree with me
> because if you do, you're wrong."
I don't generally try to argue with religious types, but this is too
silly to let pass.
There are people who believe in fairies (the kind that live at the
bottom of the garden). There are people who don't believe in fairies
(I'm one); these people are analogous to atheists. Then there are
people who think that fairies might exist - these people are agnostic
about fairies (not many in this category, I suspect). Does not
believing in fairies make me the mirror-image of a believer?
For "fairies" you can substitute many things, e.g. the existence of
ghosts, that the earth is a few thousand years old, that having sex with
a virgin is a cure for AIDS, that blowing oneself up while killing many
infidels will take one to Paradise, that after death one will be
reincarnated, that it is possible to make a perpetual motion machine,
that people are being abducted by aliens in flying saucers who perform
strange sexual acts on them, that sacrificing creatures will avert bad
events, ... the list is very long. In each case there are people who
believe it, people who don't, and people who think it might be true.
The world is, and always has been, awash with superstitions of all
kinds. Nobody believes all of them, but many believe some of them. The
great thing about our culture is that it values knowledge ahead of
belief, and in the light of knowledge superstitions tend to wither away.
Gib
TWS
"Gib Bogle"
. The
> great thing about our culture is that it values knowledge ahead
of
> belief, and in the light of knowledge superstitions tend to
wither away.
>
I thought that belief superseded knowledge. I mean you test
ideas/beliefs rather than known facts right? Religious beliefs are
tested by each individual who embraces them & the results are known
by them & noone else. So maybe for them their beliefs have become
sure knowledge..
Agnes Lovejoy Prune
> Agnes Lovejoy Prune wrote:
>
>> Atheists are the mirror-image of fundamentalist Christians, aren't
>> they? There's that same "I'm right because I believe I'm right
>> therefore I'm more right than the rest of you so don't bother to
>> disagree with me because if you do, you're wrong."
>
>
> I don't generally try to argue with religious types, but this is too
> silly to let pass.
>
of silliness in replying to what a person didn't say is fine in usenet.
A L P
Pangloss
>> Therefore I am agnostic.
>>
> Atheists are the mirror-image of fundamentalist Christians, aren't they?
> There's that same "I'm right because I believe I'm right therefore I'm
> more right than the rest of you so don't bother to disagree with me
> because if you do, you're wrong."
Yes, but at least fundamentalist Christians are comforted by the
promise of eternal bliss. All atheiests get is the satisfaction of
being able to say, "nyah nyah na nyah na."
--
Paul
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
Voltaire
steve
>> You must be an amnesiac to ready to go for it yet again.
>
> You've been taking lessons from Janice. Just show me how they are going to
> dismantle state health care. All I have ever heard even from ACT is to
> make more use of the private sector in partnership for efficiency. But
> that would be too reasonable for a Labour supporter.
Look at the history, Bob.
CHE's were set up to prepare them for sale.....
Bob....you leave me aghast that you are so ignorant of the aims of the
party you have supported.
steve
>>We've SEEN all this before.
> So what major changes ahs Labour done - nothing. Telecom is still a
> monopoly, gouging the public. Sure, Jim Anderton has set up a bank in
> opposition to the NZ owned Credit Unions, but I don't think that is
> what you meant.
> Geoff
Labour has been hemmed in by NZ business's threeats to sabotage the economy
if Labour makes them too unhappy.
Have you forgotten how the business folk spat the dummy in late 199 / early
2000 becasue National was lo longer leading the government?
Memory - it's your friend.
Still....Labour re-nationalised ACC in order to return to the social
contract that saw Kwis give up the right to sue for damages in return for
state-funded compensation and care.
National - Bill Birch, in particular - had tried to wipe that out.
steve
> So religion in schools is OK?
You're so stupid it must hurt.
A church can have whomever it wants speak.
A school is state-funded and compulsory by law.
No doubt you still have no idea what the differenced is.
Russell...your dishonesty and ignorance is breathtakling in its scope and
persistence over time.
A very fine illness you have there.
steve
I guess it was easier for you to type this than make a sensible
contribution.
You don't even know your own party's policies.....so there is no point
discussing them with you.
steve
> As if you would have a damn clue one way or the other you
> unaware psychotic fuckwit.
The usual whing crap from Russell.
Laughable that a deadhead shit like you thinks anyone else is ill.
steve
>> P.S. Brownlee is incorrect in his assertion that the bishops have not
>> spoken up about the issues above.
>
> So you will now publish their outraged rebuttals of his accusations?
>
> JC
Why would he bother? You and the rest of the idiots wouldn't give it an
honest reading.
steve
> You Steve are one fucking dishonest little twerp.
...that a fucking dishonest little twerp like yourself should think so is
high praise indead....but alas you are mistaken in this.....as in so much
else.
steve
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:08:41 +1300, steve <o...@ok.org.nz> wrote:
>
>>DPF wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:55:01 +1300, steve <o...@ok.org.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>xlo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Redbaiter" <nod...@mail.thanks> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4054...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brash's refusal to speak at the Christchurch Cathedral is well
>>>>>> justified.
>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> One might have thought that he was taking a moral stand on this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> With his strong Presbyterian beliefs, he is probably just scared his
>>>>> pants will catch on fire when he stands at the pulpit.
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>Brash is deliberately trying to exclude the churches from the debate
>>>>becasue they don't agree with him.
>>>
>>> Good God you invent things.
>>
>>I interpret what I hear. That is what Brash's comments meant to me.
>>
>>>>I heard his comments to the ffect that churches should not be invovled
>>>>in polics.....which presumably means - as far as he is concerned - that
>>>>NO politicians should be allowed to speak in a church.
>>>
>>> Now Steve is a mind reader. Never mind Brash has said that he
>>> respects the Church leaders have a different view on the Treaty - he
>>> just doesn't believe their views should be forced on all NZers.
>>
>>From the pulpits of their own churches?
>>
>>Thanks. You just proved me right.
>
> Nope you are inventing things again. He simply said that he is not
> going to legislate their views onto the entire population. So they
> can have a Church with special voting rights for Maori members, but
> that doesn't mean Local Government will have special Maori wards.
>
> DPF
Nice try.....that isn't what I was talking about at all.
I was referring to Brash attempting to dictate to the churches what they can
and can't allow from their own pulpits.
But you knew that....you just can't win that argument.....so off you went on
something else.
Typical dishonest newsgroup Nat.
steve
>
> "steve" <o...@ok.org.nz> wrote in message
> news:E1w5c.1605$u%1.24...@news02.tsnz.net...
>>
>> Christ was just another "dogooder"....and that's why you, as a national
>> party supporter, are part of that group of people who may profess to be
>> Christian...(if you do).....yet act in a way inconsistent with the
>> teachings of Christ.
>
> How can you have the cheek to say I act in a selfish way? How the hell do
> you know how I act?
You support the National Party....so your values must be in line with
theirs?
Though if I think about it, you demonstrater so little in the way of
coherent, consistent thought on almost any topic that perhaps I have
assumed too much.
> However I am not Christian. I am an atheist.
But you do not repudiate ethics and concepts such as right and wrong?
> As for
> the bible don't forget when it was written there was no such thing as
> social welfare. The people of the Middle East at that time were like the
> people of Bangladesh today. The character Jesus was exhorting people to
> show concern for the poor. The poor, sick and disabled had nothing except
> the goodwill of family and people. Jesus looms so large in Western
> religion that other people in the ancient world equally concerned with the
> poor are overlooked.
Fair enough. That much makes sense. I agree.
But Jesus' teachings remain rooted in the spiritual message...and the
renouncing of the material for the spirit. His communal message is clear
and often repeated.
>> A hypocrisy so deep and wide you can't even see it - standing as you are
> at
>> the bottom of the chasm.
>
> Such judgement!
Based on your apparent lack of awareness of the consequences of the policies
your party espouses.
> It is clear here and in other Western countries what
> overgenerous welfare does to people. Corso, an international welfare
> agency now disbanded, used as it's motto "give a man a fish and you feed
> him for a day. Teach him to fish and he will feed himself forever." I
> subscribe to that.
Me, too.....and what a shame it is that most foreign aid is so far removed
from it and instead focused on creating captive markets for the goods of
the rich countries.
> That means requiring welfare beneficiaries to
> contribute some work to society or to attend training schemes and do their
> best to get a regular job.
>
> Don't bother with your Labour inspired crocodile tears.
Labour won't disagree with you. Nor do I.
But the funny thing is - you THINK they would.
.....again....your prejudices conflict with the facts. Let's see if you care
to be right - or prefer to remain in the wrong:
http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/jobs_and_economy/Latest_Achievements
achievement2/index.html
We have the lowest unemployment in 16 years
In New Zealand today there are 176,000 more jobs than in 1999 and our
country is enjoying strong economic growth. We have the lowest unemployment
in 16 years. Gross domestic production is up 3.9 per cent in the last 12
months. We are addressing skills shortages and our Jobs Jolt initiative
will help get more people into work.
http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/social_development
social_security_summary_2002/index.html
Social Security Policy Summary 2002
Social Security Policy 2002 - Summary
LABOUR?S VISION
Our vision of social security is one where we support people in times of
need and assist them
to lift their skills and abilities so they can build a better future - for
themselves and their
families. Our social development approach invests in people so that they can
secure a job,
build a better life for their children, and participate more fully in their
community.
LABOUR?S RECORD
We have:
? Achieved record numbers of job placements to help people move into paid
work.
? Reduced numbers receiving the Unemployment benefit.
? Invested in better support and services for job seekers, such as case
management,
training and skill development.
? Addressed problems faced by seasonal workers and put in place programmes
to assist
the mature unemployed, Maori and Pacific people to gain meaningful work.
? Introduced laws to remove the work test from Domestic Purposes and Widows
benefits.
? Increased subsidised hours for childcare and out-of-school care (OSCAR)
help.
? Commissioned Judge Mick Brown to undertake a comprehensive review of care
and
protection and actioned every area of that review.
? In Budget 2001, invested an extra $216 million in services to care for
children and
support families.
LABOUR?S PRIORITIES
We will:
? Provide more help for families with children. Our priorities include
annual reviews of
Family Support and Family Tax Credit rates and thresholds, increasing the
maximum
number of subsidised childcare hours to support parents moving into paid
work and the
introduction of an ?abatement-free zone? for people receiving income support
and
Accommodation Supplement, encouraging and rewarding movement into
employment.
? Build on current pilot programmes to improve support for people who cannot
work due
to sickness or disability ensuring they can participate as fully as
possible.
? Establish a Parenting Council to coordinate a whole of government approach
to
promote the importance of, and provide support for, good parenting.
? Provide work start grants and help with in-work costs for people moving
into work.
? Improve case management and employment programmes to help people gain
skills and
get jobs.
? Invest more funding in community-based services meeting the needs of
children and
families and improve social work practice at Child, Youth and Family.
? Expand successful programmes such as social workers in schools and
Stronger
Community Action Funds.
? Establish a Social Development Fund, to enable local leadership and
co-ordination of
social services consistent with a ?whole of community? approach to social
issues.
? Implement the Community and Voluntary Sector Working Party suggestions to
improve funding arrangements.
? Maintain and grow the network of volunteer centers.
steve
>> Brash is deliberately trying to exclude the churches from the debate
>> becasue they don't agree with him.
>
> You're confusing your opinion with fact. You always do this. is
> it because you're insane?
You're simply confused - and adamantly so.
As for insanity...You're the master (bater), Russell.
steve
> Shouldn't you have started a thread by now gloating over the
> deaths in Spain. Something with a tile like-
>
> "That'll teach em"...!!
How gross and callous of you.....though very much in line with your usual
posting style.
Agnes Lovejoy Prune
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:22:13 +1300, Agnes Lovejoy Prune wrote:
>
>
>>>Therefore I am agnostic.
>>>
>>
>>Atheists are the mirror-image of fundamentalist Christians, aren't they?
>> There's that same "I'm right because I believe I'm right therefore I'm
>>more right than the rest of you so don't bother to disagree with me
>>because if you do, you're wrong."
>
>
> Yes, but at least fundamentalist Christians are comforted by the
> promise of eternal bliss. All atheiests get is the satisfaction of
> being able to say, "nyah nyah na nyah na."
...And apatheists say, "I don't know and I'm not bothered either way."
A L P
steve
>
> "steve" <o...@ok.org.nz> wrote in message
> news:BBv5c.1587$u%1.24...@news02.tsnz.net...
>>>
>> Christ's message has nothing whatever in common with
>> devil-take-the-hind-most market Darwinism.
>
> Hasn't it?
No. It hasn't. You should try reading the four gospels some time.
> Since the start of the industrial evolution workers have
> gradually enjoyed higher and higher living standards and more importantly
> more respect. Concern for work site safety and the welfare of workers has
> gradually increased. Isn't that Christianity? It is certainly the best
> aspects of humanism.
Those 'ever higher living standards' were NOT bequeathed to workers by their
loving bosses.
They were fought for through labour unions and political means. Business
opposed the every step of the way....and still does in the form of the
Naitonal and ACT parties.
> Wouldn't Jesus have approved of good employers? Not all adherents of free
> capitalism are greedy money grubbers.
Jesus would approve of any decent, honest person who looked out for his
neighbours as he would want them to look out for him.
But that isn't what most of the free market capitalists have been pursuing
in the way of policy lately.
If you think it is, can you provide an exmaple?
Jason M
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>"Jason M" <jma...@very.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:405573e6...@news.akl.ihugultra.co.nz...
>> The National Party don't seem to want the religious vote any more.
>> Brownlee's interview together with Richard Randerson, the assistant
>> Anglican bishop of Auckland, on National Radio on 1st March has not
>> been reported properly. Have you seen the "pompous, pious" quote
>> anywhere in the media yet?
>>
>> Brownlee: "Well I think actually, if you read the release that was
>> put out by the bishops, it's only fair to describe it as a pompous,
>> pious proclamation that demonstrates extremely weak and simple
>> thinking, and frankly Linda, it's the reason why congregations
>> continue to dwindle in this country. These are guys who are now
>> claiming some sort of a leadership role who were silent on the
>> prostitution bill that now sees children in my city standing on the
>> streets, were silent on the drinking age that sees children
>> increasingly having alcohol problems, silent on the civil unions bill
>> that attacks the status of marriage in this country and silent
>> frankly, on the appalling abortion statistics that are [inaudible] in
>> this country as well. I don't think they've got a lot of credibility
>> and I don't think they're connected to the concerns that average New
>> Zealanders have about this stuff."
>>
>> P.S. Brownlee is incorrect in his assertion that the bishops have not
>> spoken up about the issues above.
>
>So you will now publish their outraged rebuttals of his accusations?
Brownlee: "These are guys who are now claiming some sort of a
leadership role who were silent on the prostitution bill..."
Brownlee is a liar. There are many reports of the church leaders
opposition to the prostitution bill. Here's one of them:
Church leaders mount last effort to halt prostitution bill
23.06.2003 5.10 pm
Labour MP Tim Barnett has accused a group of church leaders of
arrogance and ignorance in their arguments against decriminalising
prostitution.
Mr Barnett has sponsored the Prostitution Reform Bill which he
believes has the numbers to pass into law this week.
There was a group of 62 or 63 MPs who had consistently voted for the
legislation "and I'm pretty confident we're going to get that support
on Wednesday", Mr Barnett said today.
A group of bishops and other church leaders is making a last ditch
effort to stop the bill.
They have written to all MPs saying the bill does not serve the
interests of prostitutes or New Zealand society.
At the heart of its objections was that the bill normalised
prostitution, group spokesman Bishop Richard Randerson said today.
He told National Radio that the people who would benefit from the bill
were those who worked in massage parlours, were intelligent, mature,
articulate, self-confident and those who were more than 18 years of
age.
Less than half of all prostitutes worked in massage parlours. Many
were young, vulnerable, unable to speak for themselves and had drug
addictions, he said.
Church leaders were not convinced the bill offered much protection to
this group, the letter said.
"The normalising of prostitution sends a message that the commercial
selling of one's body is an acceptable function in society and will
draw many other young and vulnerable people into the business."
The letter was signed by Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist,
Salvation Army, Baptist leaders and Anglican Deans of Cathedrals.
Tarla
>Government has taken the place of religion in peoples lives and Clark
>fancies herself at it's head. What happens to a nation which has lost it's
>faith? Do the citizens become lemmings without a hope, blown about by
>endless windy lies?
A nation without religion is a rational nation. It will make decisions
based on what's best for the people it is beholden to instead of some
Invisible Cloud Being. It sounds idyllic to me.
Tarla
****
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
--James Madison
Tarla
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:22:13 +1300, Agnes Lovejoy Prune wrote:
>
>>> Therefore I am agnostic.
>>>
>> Atheists are the mirror-image of fundamentalist Christians, aren't they?
>> There's that same "I'm right because I believe I'm right therefore I'm
>> more right than the rest of you so don't bother to disagree with me
>> because if you do, you're wrong."
>
>Yes, but at least fundamentalist Christians are comforted by the
>promise of eternal bliss. All atheiests get is the satisfaction of
>being able to say, "nyah nyah na nyah na."
And to live their lives from from the oppression of Heaven and Hell
wating for them.
Peter
wrote:
> <snip>
I would have thought that an endorsement from Redbaiter is the last
thing Don needs and would in fact be counter-productive.
Redbaiter seems disenchanted at my 'do not respond to Redbaiter'
policy I have been operating for quite some time, so I might as well
have a fling and chime in with my bit. Hopefully this will cheer him
up.
Damon Nomad
<bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:55:12 +1300, "John Cawston"
><rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>So you will now publish their outraged rebuttals of his accusations?
>
>Anglican bishops do not get outraged, John.
Neither of the two Anglican Bishops I personally know get
outraged.
> A gentle reprimand is more their style.
I wouldn't even agree with that, an explanation would be more in
line with their way of doing things.
Peter
> <snip>
Feel better, now, Red?
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:17:48 +1300, "John Cawston"
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:2kjc50584kqup2nkt...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:55:12 +1300, "John Cawston"
>> <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >> P.S. Brownlee is incorrect in his assertion that the bishops have not
>> >> spoken up about the issues above.
>> >
>> >So you will now publish their outraged rebuttals of his accusations?
>>
>> Anglican bishops do not get outraged, John. A gentle reprimand is
>> more their style.
>>
>> The last English bishop to get outraged was Becket, and look what
>> happened to him.
>
>I would have said that his King was the more outraged. And *then* look what
>happened to Becket.
>
>Brash has a bunch of Knights Templars on his trail.
Not surprising; they were the money-men of their time.
And it's Knights Templar.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Brian Dooley
>
>"steve" <o...@ok.org.nz> wrote in message
>news:wXv5c.1602$u%1.24...@news02.tsnz.net...
>>>
>> But, like most National MPs, he doesn't give a steaming turd what the
>truth
>> is.....and prefers to rely on the ignorance and the prejudice of the
>> listeners to allow his errors of fact be widely believed to be "true"....
>>
>> Much like his boss and his bogus message of Maori "privilege".
>
>Now you are showing your true leftist style ignorance, prejudice and
>propaganda.
I'm glad I'm not a true leftist.
Joy
"Tarla" <tarla...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:628h50drk9od7kl0b...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:12:03 +1300, "Joy" <jh...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
> >Government has taken the place of religion in peoples lives and Clark
> >fancies herself at it's head. What happens to a nation which has lost
it's
> >faith? Do the citizens become lemmings without a hope, blown about by
> >endless windy lies?
>
> A nation without religion is a rational nation. It will make decisions
> based on what's best for the people it is beholden to instead of some
> Invisible Cloud Being. It sounds idyllic to me.
How can any group of people with little in common except that they all
breathe decide anything?
Joy
John Cawston
Fair enough. He lied or didnt know what he was talking about.
JC
Tarla
It doesn't take a religion to create commonality between people in a
nation. Most people have the same needs: health, safety, education and
entertainment. These needs have little or nothing to do with religion.
Tarla
****
Life loves to be taken by the lapel and told,
I am with you kid Let's go!'
--Maya Angelou
John Cawston
Ah. Nga Templar.
Got it.
JC
Jason M
wrote:
Try the three dice method. If you feel that you want to reply to him,
toss three dice and if the result is three "sixes" then you reply to
him.
steve
> Wow, what's happened slime bag, to your previous uncontrollable
> obsession, for instance where you posted 80 messages to
> Redbaiter in one weekend?
Was that in response to your 160?