SPC

Your comments serve to confirm that the relationships between church and state, and relationship between the citizen in capacity of voter and religious believer, are complex. On its dark side religion has the inquisition, while secularism has given the world the totalitarianism of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.

As a “religious believer”, and a “moral conservative”, I may have very different views to yourself on a range of social and moral questions. However, I do not accept or owe allegiance to either the “collective western security alliance” or the “Christian Church throne let Commonwealth” as your remarks imply that you do. The collective security system and the British monarchy are secular institutions which are in fundamental conflict with Christian doctrine.

Americans may be a religious people, but the United States of America is a secular state. The juxtaposition is not uncommon. The majority of Turks are Muslim but the Turkish state is so determinedly secular that it will not allow fundamentalist Muslim women to attend university. The Catholic Church wields a strong influence in France, but the secular French state prohibits any display of religious belief by school students, and demands that all citizens profess belief in secular values. So everywhere secular states conflict with religion, and secularism is in conflict with religious states (of which the Islamic Republic of Iran is probably the only true example in the contemporary world – appearances notwithstanding the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia do not really qualify as religious states).

The Realm of New Zealand is also a secular state. Members of Parliament and others are required to swear allegiance to the Queen as Head of State, but not (explicitly) as Head of the Church, and they do not have to swear on the Bible. It is not my understanding that Members of Parliament are required to join in the prayer led by the Speaker. They are free to remain silent.

And I doubt that you could find a single theologian, in any of the Christian churches, who would defend the mandatory oath of allegiance to the crown on the basis of Christian doctrine. The fact is that as well as being an affront to natural justice and common sense, it is a clear violation of religious principle. People may be bribed, intimidated or tricked into making a show of belief, but they cannot be compelled to believe. True religion requires true belief, freely given.

Both secularism and religion can fall short of their ideals, and as can be seen from the examples of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, France and Turkey, secularism has no better claim than theology to be the architect of “a more just, fair, reasoned, tolerant and inclusive society”.

My personal belief is that only religion can provide effective moral constraints upon the excesses of secular liberal capitalism. But it can only do that if it adheres to its proper role as critic and conscience of the secular state. When the church allows itself to be degraded into an instrument to endorse and enforce the power of the state, then it violates all its own fundamental principles, and will only compound the problems of secular society.

Sapient refers to the case of a presumably secular Palmerston North City Councillor who refuses to sing the national anthem because it contains references to God. I don’t have a problem with his refusal. I do have a problem with the idea that his stand is somehow “arrogant” or unacceptable. No one should be obliged to acquiesce in any kind of public profession of belief or allegiance. To require them to do so is a violation of the human spirit and religious anathema.

The freedoms of western society are at least in part attributable to the influence of Christianity, specifically to the influence of the more radical religious movements of the Protestant reformation. But those freedoms need to be exercised with the kind of restraints that, traditionally at least, only religion has been able to provide. If liberal secular capitalism chooses to reject the restraining influence of religion, then in the fullness of time it will face a similar fate to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

I have probably said as much as I can in this forum at this time, but these issues are canvassed at greater length in “the republican” http://www.republican.co.nz (specifically in articles such as “A solemn oath”, “The case against pragmatism” and “An Islamist critique of democracy”)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC,
well here in palmy a recently elected counseler, chris teo-sherall, refused to stand or sing the national anthem because of religious reference; that went down like a ton of bricks off a sinking ship, came across more as arrogant than as a moral stand.
I agree that there should be a body to which the police must make their case for such survelance but i do feel inclined to beleive that they were wrong in survelance on the green party. I do not know if they have suveilance on gangs, i would expect they do, but they should.
But groups withn the green party, and esspecially the main target of the spying, do have strong histories of violating the law and in many cases that is in destructive manners.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Geoff Fischer,

I would like to be able to simply agree with you, however given most Americans will not vote a non Christian into the White House (and they lead our collective western security alliance) and the continuing Christian Church throne led Commonwealth of ours …

Note the language of the American oath of allegiance, in God they trust their capital (on their money) and these developments occured in the past century, let alone the declaration of war against secular society from the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition movements (and the Catholic Church) and the more recent Christian Dominionism (preparing for the advent by restoring Christian government) doctrine …

In America Christian revisionists argue the USA was not formed a secular nation (no established religion) but a Christian one, albeit without an established Christian Church.

Here our MP’s swear allegiance to the Christian throne Crown on the bible and partake in the prayer led by the Speaker …

And now it is common to hear apology for our freedoms being an inheritance of Christendom – as if any challenge to a continuing Christian heritage (such as a secular society republic) would be to put those freedoms at risk.

Of course this apology is nonsense, but rarely is it challenged in our public media. The renaissance and democracy of course emerged out of challenge to divine right autocracy/theocracy partly as a consequence of the wars of religion – in the search for a more just, fair, reasoned, tolerant and inclusive society.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

sapient

It would seem to me that some groups being surveillanced have no history of criminal acts, but merely of protest action that inconvenienced police (blocking roads/gathering around buildings to make a protest) and that was enough for there to be the police attitude that such groups of “people” might/could go a step further.

It’s interesting that “anti-terrorism” seems to allow (in the police mind) surveillance for the protection of corporate property from protestors who “might” resort to criminal acts – yet there is no right to surveillance ex cons to protect the civilian public from their crime: not unless there is probable cause sufficient to convince a judge in each and every case.

Despite the reputation of gangs, I doubt that many are actually under surveillance.

Why is there no independent person/body to whom police must convince of a significiant threat before “anti-terrorist” surveillance begins? And given the only act of terrorist “violence” we know of include the bombing/killing of a unionist and racist attacks one presumes this would have been where equal or greater focus belonged.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC: What the regime defines as “freedom of the press” is actually the power of the press, the privileges of the press, and the corruption of the press. The power and the privilege of the press to determine what ordinary mortals shall be permitted to read and know. The corruption of the press which will publish any kind of untruth or fabrication in exchange for a sum of money. In time to come, humanity will wonder how it was that people of our era tolerated such gross abuses of truth, reason and justice, and even dignified them under the motto of “freedom of the press”.

On the other issue, over the past century western society has separated itself from the bonds of Christendom and has become explicitly secular. The state has thereby given up its claim to be sanctified by the church, and in return it has freed itself of the theoretical obligation to submit to the institutes of the Christian religion, the laws of God, and the precepts of Jesus. Many politicians in profoundly secular states (such as the US, France, and even New Zealand) continue to profess religious belief only because they want to have their cake and eat it as well. They want to cloak themselves in the mantle of Jesus while the state which they administer engages in the most abominably un-Christian acts of violence, deception, greed and corruption. Think George W Bush in the US or the late unlamented “Christian coalition” in New Zealand. None of this makes the US, NZ, or any other western state “Christian”.

Both these issues have been discussed at some length in posts to the repubican (www.republican.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Geoff Fischer,
I take a not-so-quiet pride in being bereft of such things as morals as they are, by their very nature, irrational. My arguements all have a rational basis, my criticism of other Green party members is based on the absence of rationality in their arguements and their reliance so much on their own, hypocritical, morals which more often than not dictate taking an action which activly works against the ultimate acheivement of their purpose. I am a member of the Green Party, and a highly active one at that, i pursue primarily the continuation of life as in the absence of such a continuation any of the other endevours are uterly pointless but yet a large portion of the party would rather follow paths which they feel justified by their personal, irrational, morals even though following such paths is nothing more than feel-good bull and activly works against both the survival of life and the pursuit of all that they are trying to accheive through said action.

SPC,
It is indeed illegal to for the police or a government agency to place survelence on a party unless sanctioned by the court (unless that was changed with the terrorism legislation). But the arguement here is not if it should or should not be illegal but if the police should or should not have taken such actions with all things considered. My arguement being that it is the duty of the police to protect the people and as such it falls on them to pay attention to the parties more likley to commit offences against the public, many of the groups in the green party having well documented histories of such. So long as the police only interfare when violence, theft, or destruction is on the books then it is fine and no freedoms are treaded on. Anti-anything groups are perfectly within their rights to protest passivly or to attempt to change laws through lobbying or through convincing the public, they do not however have any right nor entitlement to activly violate laws in an attempt to change the status quo in favour or their own, in most cases ignorant, minority opinions. To rip out crops, steel beagles, destroy research, etc because you dont agree with it is no different than a group of catholics going to a gay bar to assult queers because it is an “affront to god”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Some only defend freedom of speech, when it is to capable of being bought and paid for, thus it enables those who have the greater resources to prevail using it. Otherwise freedom of speech involves the freedom to dissent and protest against any “establishment”. A democracy not controlled by those who “have” power via wealth and or status in the institutions of government, is a potential threat, thus their security is in associating those who protest against it and them as the sort of people who are inimical to the collective security of “our western Christendom society” (Christ is used by them to symbolise an authority with government to act on behalf of God).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

There is a strange reluctance among this group to address what seems to me to be the real issue, i.e. the fact that the regime has employed deceit and treachery in its campaign of public surveillance.

I spend a modest amount of time in monitoring the activities of the monarchist regime, so why would I object if the regime were to spend some of its rather more extensive resources monitoring my activities? But I do object to the regime’s use of dishonesty, deception, treachery and perjury as part of, or in association with, its surveillance activities, and, to be consistent, I eschew the use of all such tactics myself.

My advice to those who oppose the regime is simple and direct. Assume that the regime is listening to every word you utter, reading every line you write, and watching your every action, but don’t fret about it. Just get on with your life, and make sure that you are well prepared for the day when the regime moves from surveillance to the violent suppression of its opponents.

To those who support the regime, it is hardly surprising that you have descended to making anonymous accusations made against un-named individuals (i.e. Sapient’s (?) reference to “ignorant” “hypocritical” and “self-righteous fools” in the Green Party). You are after all bereft of any moral or rational arguments.

And I will turn the charge of hypocrisy against ACT Party Member of Parliament John Boscawen, and all his colleagues, who campaigned so strenuously for the “freedom of speech” of the New Zealand Herald but fell strangely silent when the “Herald”, and the regime it serves, sought to deny those same freedoms to any other New Zealander.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient,

It is illegal to spy on groups without a warrant from a court judge – based on sufficient cause in their case, not some profiling of people of that group type/cause.

This does not mean that some groups of people do not do it, without a warrant – but they cannot admit evidence so gathered in a court case. And what they do could result in themselves being the subject of a criminal prosecution.

Discrimiation is premised on a simple idea – that because one “Jew” has broken a law, all “Jews” are law breakers who need to be so categorised and surveillanced.

Thus you link types of protest groups to what some people might do in that cause – and associate all groups of that cause with the pssibility of a criminal action …

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC,
It would be more efficent to use survelence on ex-cons than it would on the entire population as ex-cons have shown themselves to have a tendancy to commit criminal acts.
To protest is one thing, to steel and to destroy is another and pretty much everything anti-vivisectors do to protest comes under those groupings, the same goes for alot of anti-ge protesters though to a smaller extent. The intent of these actions is primarily to get attention and secondarily to show the those whom practice such things that they may also receive such attention; this is terrorism and vandalism.
To spy on a gang is no different, if there is a spot where danger brews then it is logical to keep a watch on that spot. So long as the police only intervein in non legaly sanctioned protests and actions then there is not a problem, its what they should do to protect the public; if i had a large collection of guns and armour, had known suicidal, antisocial and homocidal tendancies then the public would expect the police to keep an eye on me at the very least.
would you want the police to spy on the kkk, mungrel mob, white suprimists, etc? it is justified, i absolutly hate the thought of a powerful state but survelance of groups known to engage in criminal activity is entrily justified.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

sapient

It may also be “efficient use of resources” to sound surveillance all ex cons (without a warrant) but that is also illegal …

The idea that “our security” is secured by those who protect some status quo, from the challenge of those who organise to campaign or protest, is interesting – particularly the identification of this role for those given powers to combat “international” terrorism. Is the war against terrorism in the end largely in effect a front for suppressing local civilian protest – protest against the behaviour of business and the interest of capital to be unregulated in its treatment of animals and the environment?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient:
Without a doubt you are in a much better position to judge those that have lead roles in the vital workings of this party. I do remember though that around the time of the formation of the Values Party there was a small but respected group of environmentalists and ‘alternative lifestylers’ who argued that ‘living naturally’ and respect for nature could not be achieved through politics. I guess in much the same way as many fundamentalist Christian organisations discourage their membership from being politicaly active or even to vote.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kjuv,
I do agree that an interest in the continuation of life on this planet may be reguarded as a frame of mind better suited to our evolutionary purpose and our social good than a frame-set of apathy or ignorance. I just become infuriated by the shear volume of ignorance, ideology, and hypocracy that is so pervesive within this party as people say that they care for the environment and continued survival and yet their personal and political actions speak otherwise.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient:

Fair enough. But of course, a person’s attitude, albeit self-righteousness, pious, laissez-faire can be readily separated from the veracity of that person’s belief system. Afterall, as Blue Peter regularly informs us, ‘cognitive dissonance’ is fairly pervasive .

Anyway, caring about the planet would generally be regarded as a better frame of mind than apathy or ignorance don’t you think? But yes, hypocrisy is quite a different ballgame!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

personal superiority*

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kjuv,
well initially i wrote “self-rightous, idealistic, and ignorant fools”, lol., but i figured that was over-doing it alittle.
May comment as to the self righteous nature of many in the party refers more to their beleif in the righteousnes of their personal ideology than in a beleif in superiority as such. Though a significant number are very hypocritical, if not in their lifes then in their political viewpoints, even in green party policy and practice.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>the self righious fools whom oppose such practices; i.e. the green party.

Hmm… ‘self-righteousness’ usually implies not only a sense of smug superiority but also a display of hypocrisy Are you saying that, Sapient, that green party people are more akin to smug hypocrits than (at times) laudable idealists?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC,
targeting people based on their political creed, like profiling, may not be politically correct but it is none-the-less a logical, effecient, and effective allocation of limited and scare resources. If it is ones purpose to protect the status quo of a given group it is entirly logical to target those groups which are more likley to attempt to change that status quo. If you want to stop gay marrage, racial sepratism, or abortion you dont attack the conservitives, you attack those whom disapprove strongly of such practices.
Likewise, if you want to stop anti-vivisection raids, anti-war vandalism, and destruction of GE property you dont target the party which houses the vivisectors, warmongers, and business men; you target the party which houses the self righious fools whom oppose such practices; i.e. the green party.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Targeting people by their political creed or religious stutus is itself illegal – and that includes selection for surveillance.

Thus who was spied on, and why they were chosen, is much the same thing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

In response to SPC: Surveillance is not persecution, although it is often a precursor to persecution. I believe that the distinction is an important one, and should be respected if criticisms of the regime’s actions in this case are to be fully credible.

I also believe that the focus needs to shift away from the issue of who the regime was spying upon, to the way in which the regime chose to spy upon its subjects. One of the first posts in this thread quoted Pastor Niemoller, who made exactly that point: we cannot afford to condone the idea that some people should be the subject of this kind of surveillance, while others should not.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)