by frog
If there were ever a court case that justifies the Green Party initiated amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act, it is this one:
The case also had a political and social background, Mr Keegan [the defendant's counsel] said.
The premise of spare the rod and spoil the child came from the Bible and was the traditional belief of many who still believed in physical punishment and that the state should not interfere in the way children should be brought up.
It would take society a long time to make the change, Mr Keegan said.
The judge countered that he would have no compunction in jailing a man who assaulted his wife in the same way.
“This involves kicking and hitting with an alkathene pipe,” the judge said.
Mr Keegan said nuns at his boarding school had also used weapons, such as canes and straps, and would now face assault charges if they did the same today.
“I got caned but I never got kicked by my principal,” the judge responded.
Judge Roberts said he was concerned that the father had told the probation officer that he would not change. The father had said: “I won’t moderate my behaviour. I see no wrong in using violence.”
New Plymouth District Court Judge Allan Roberts later postponed the sentencing till March 19 and called for a new probation report after he was told the man now accepted he must change his ways.
Let’s hope he heeds the Judge, and does.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by frog on Sat, February 13th, 2010
Tags: child abuse, fundamentalism, Section 59, violence against children
Her name was suppressed by the Court, so I have to be careful here, but what I can tell frogblog readers is that the same woman was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an even more serious instance of assault against another of her children.
If the law had been as it is now, she may have been dissuaded from committing both of her serious assaults against her children.
Or locked up after the first one, so at least the second one did not happen.
Like or Dislike:
19 
7 (+12)
And good to see Family First doing something constructive in the interests of discouraging child abuse by putting up a reward for information leading to a conviction of the killer of the Kahui twins, rather than continuing to rabbit on about parents’ “right” to administer “light smacks” to their children.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7 (+3)
Toad
I don’t bother with it much because it is a waste of time. The current law and the previous are scarcely different and this case did nothing to make it any clearer. The party shot itself in the foot by not making the law explicit and clear, and some members insist on reloading without correcting their aim. An explicit law would have been a lot better at dissuading people from doing it the first time.
Bringing it up repeatedly to reinforce the error isn’t any smarter than making the law as it was made in the first instance. It almost certainly contributed to putting National in the driver’s seat where it is now, and they are slaughtering every other issue we hold dear. From climate change to schools to benefits to parks.
Do we REALLY want to do this again?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
8 
9 (-1)
BJ wanted “An explicit law “.
Have you seen or thought of this explicit law which defines “explicitly” the amount of force which (you think) is reasonable? Is the speed limit an example of such an explicit law? 50km/hr, explicitly enforced (~most of the time when clocked above 59… except by a school when above 54 is the explicit cut off).
You may well be right that s59 may have been a poor political move for the Greens, but aren’t the Greens a party of principles before politics?
I, like most, value your views and so ask again. Have you seen or thought of this explicit law which defines “explicitly” the amount of force which (you think) is reasonable?
Like or Dislike:
6 
6 (0)
marka tescil
Bringing it up repeatedly to reinforce the error isn’t any smarter than making the law as it was made in the first instance. It almost certainly contributed to putting National in the driver’s seat where it is now, and they are slaughtering every other issue we hold dear. From climate change to schools to benefits to parks.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
This is the argument the three-strikes people are using. Without knowing any of the details of the name-suppressed woman, I think it could only be true if she was in jail for so long that, by the time she got out, her children were too big or too violent for her to assault. That’s potentially a long time, and no crime should have a sentence longer than murder, or it’s obvious what to do with the witnesses
I’d really rather there was an earlier, more useful response to the situation, but I’m not sure that I will always trust the government of the day to teach parenting 
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Back when it was important to get it right, Sapient and I knocked together a tentative law which withstood every test WE could come up with. It took us all of about an hour. It isn’t THAT difficult. I’m not doing it again, but it is certainly in the blog archives somewhere.
It would have covered this guy in spades. It wouldn’t have given him the slightest recourse to “reasonable” force no matter what his religious point of view, and he would have known damned well exactly what part of the law he was breaking when he ever picked up the pipe. So would everyone else.
…and we’d probably be in government instead of watching everything we worked for getting torn apart.
The current law works IFF you can trust the police to do it right. Which is mostly true in this time and place, but which would be a dire mistake in a lot of places.
Just what happens when you run this offense past a “born again” cop?
No I don’t really want to drag it out again. We did ourselves enough damage.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
The lawyer argues that the defendant did nothing more violent to the alleged victim, than his old teacher did to him at school. The Judge retorts that no teacher was ever allowed to kick a pupil; moreover, the Judge states that had the child concerned been an adult woman victim, an immediate charge of assault would have been levelled for the kind of violent behaviour exhibited.
The paraphrase I have made above points out two things:
that NZ society is still encumbered with a lot of influential people who have grown up with an acceptance of violence as a means of enforcing attitudes/behaviour;
and that the Judiciary are hard put to get the counsel to acknowledge both changes in contemporary mores, and the actual letter of the law of this legislation.
I wouldn’t mind betting that the defendant in this case would disagree with the Judge on the matter of the legality of beating an adult woman in this manner, as well – he’d likely quote that ‘the Bible allows a man to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb’.
Like, maybe, a riding crop.
This is the kind of situation that the fundies are trying to legitimise, by running cases to defend their violence, and their disregard for the rights of women and children to live without daily abuse in their lives.
The fact that sentencing has been adjourned, and that the defendant has considered changing his attitude, suggests that a level of poor advice from a lawyer who did not consider his defence strategy well may have been a contributing factor. On top of a personal denial of responsibility or liability for his own actions by the defendant, who may have thought he would be able to bluff his way through this defence. The whole story smacks of a bully who has never been told that his abuse is unacceptable.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
“people like this guy in Taranaki don’t have a defence any more”
That’s got nothing to do with the Greens ideology enforcement Toad, the guy would have been prosecuted under the old law as well.
But I guess it was worth it still Toad? being made politically irrelevant over an issue that has nothing at all to do with the environment.
But hey, we have bigger fish to fry now don’t we, the country is about to be turned inside out in a hunt for minerals.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
Shunda – We can only speculate on whether he would have been aquitted or convicted under the old law if it had gone to trial. But under the old law, he had a legal defence he could have raised – under the current law he did not, so pleaded guilty. But the case I referred to where a woman was acquitted involved a very similar factual situation and motive for the violence.
I’m right with you in the struggle to save our National Parks from being ripped up by miners. But the Greens are about more than just the physical environment – they are a political party, not an NGO. The stand on section 59 may have cost the Greens politically, but I’m proud that the Greens are a party of principle who are prepared to stick by their policies because they believe they are correct, even though in some cases they may not be that popular. Better that Key’s waffling around over raising GST, where the decision seems to be going to be based on whether he can get away with it politically, rather than whether it is the correct thing to do.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
BJ said “No I don’t really want to drag it out again”
Fair enough. Interesting example re ‘born again cop’. That scenario would be one way to really test the law… I guess there are such cops around, so time will tell.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Frog.
Violence against children is a tragedy, but so is leaving children without discipline. We will see more violence and miscreant behaviour in society as children grow up with parents who are too scared to discipline them for fear of having their families torn apart by interfering CYFS social workers. The sad thing is that those who refrain from applying reasonable discipline as a result of this law are doing as much damage to their children as those who do violence to their children.
So don’t gloat as it is a tragedy. The children haven’t won anything much except perhaps a reprieve from the violence, but the family will be subject to CYFS harrassment forever and a day from now on.
Toad, Family first have not forgotten on or relented on opposing the current Section 59, and less than a month pointed to another report which shows that smacking produces marginally better kids. Anyway Family First are concerned with all matters of Family life in NZ, not just the current Section 59.
Katie, can you provide reference to where one might find in the Bible this Rule of Thumb you speak of?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Page 14.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Green Fly,
Chapter and verse would be preferred.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
No doubt, dlr, but if you haven’t already got ‘rule of thumb’ memorised, it’s better that you search for it yourself.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
It’s just I can’t find it in my bible. (Maybe I’m missing some pages??)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb#Thumb_used_for_regulation
Can’t find any Biblical reference.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Really Old Testament.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
@ Toad…they are a political party, not an NGO
Really?
They seem determined to stay out of government to me.
Currently below 5%, I see in the paper.
Keep up the irrelevant work!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
dlr said:
“Maybe I’m missing some pages??”
Indeed.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Greenfly,
O come on do tell. Unless of course it’s not true…
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
dlr – I’ll be straight with you. The words quoted do come from the pages you are missing.
You are missing several other things as well, based on your comments earlier.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Samiam, was that the online herald subscribers poll? Didn’t that also give %60 in favour of raising gst to %15?
Hopefully that poll is not an accurate reflection of voters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly said: “dlr – I’ll be straight with you. The words quoted do come from the pages you are missing.”
Greenfly, you presume too much and produce no evidence. One can only conclude you don’t know, or are simply making things up.
Greenfly also said “You are missing several other things as well, based on your comments earlier.”
Oh do tell! Or is this just an ad hominem attack because your embarrassed at having your bluff called.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
dlr (short for ‘delirious’ – who knows?)
Calling my bluff, eh!
My rule of thumb in situations like this, is to turn the other cheek.
Now that sounds biblical and should cause you all sorts of confusion, unless you are, as I suspect, Olde Testamental.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
dir –
I was a Sunday school teacher from my late teens, until I divorced in my mid-thirties.
I do know the Bible.
I would question which version you’re using, as some translations into contemporary english don’t use the wording that the King James Version (17th century) used, so quotes that have become figures of speech are not easily found in modern american translations.
If you want to understand the piece I was quoting, read also the epistles of Paul the Apostle. Acts, Romans, and the epistles to the churches of Ephesus, Phillipi, Collossi, Galatia, Corinth, and Thessalonica – you may recognise some of these as Greek cities – at the time, they were being evangelised by the new christian faith, from their former pagan worship of Greek gods.
Most of the christian fundamentalist misoygny comes from that part of the New Testament.
Also, the homophobia.
Leviticus is the other book to read, one of the first 5 books of the bible, known as the books of Moses, and similar but not identical to the Talmud, the Jewish books of history and law.
There you can find the rape of Tamar, a young woman who killed herself after being raped by her half-brother. He lived on, unpunished, but the books record the events from some centuries later, and record that a man shall not sleep with his sister. This is where our incest laws come from.
That was not intended to be a quick answer to your challenge, btw.
You sound like someone who wishes for a comprehensive education in the pov of fundamentalist christians, rather than just a once-over-lightly.
So do some research, use a contemporary english version – you will probably find a selection in your local public library, if you don’t own one, or wish to purchase one.
Once you’ve got through that, I recommend reading a few simple buddhist texts, then a few simplified Hindu vedas, and if you’re up to it, the Koran in translation.
Then, maybe, I’ll be ready to have a doctrinal discussion with you about the flaws of fundamental christian evangelical groups.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Katie – those are the very points I was about to make!!!
Spooky!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Fin
I am probably more sensitive to the nature of the beliefs of the police because I have seen some of the police forces in the USA. The KKK members who also have badges… and that’s hardly all of it. We get away with a lot of ambiguity here in NZ because we have (relatively) trustworthy law-enforcement… and I hope that NEVER changes.
Things CAN be discretionary for an officer’s judgment, how to handle an incident is always up to him or her, but here we often seem to rely entirely on the officer, or the election review board, or some other body NOT tasked with defining laws, for the practical definition of the law.
In other words, the parliamentarians are dodging the hard questions.
That’s not about a specific issue, it is a tendency throughout parliament, and apparently part of the NZ political and social reality.
Which may go some way towards explaining how easily business NZ is able to ride roughshod over the people of NZ, no matter which government is in power.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie,
I to am familiar with the bible, and the teachings of fundamentalist christians, but I still cannot place my finger on chapter and verse the principle of that ‘rule of thumb’, expressly or implied in the Bible the God given right to for a man to beat his wife.
I have come across the principle in the Qu’ran, but the Qu’ran is not the Bible, neither do the Hindu Vedas or Buddist Teachings constitute a part of the Bible, and are thus out of scope.
You provided the quote: ‘the Bible allows a man to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb’
You implied in the context of your post that it is a ‘Christian Fundamentalist principle that it is a God given right for a man to beat his wife’. I want to know where you get that from.
True or false: Does the Bible state the principle or imply that God gives any man a right to beat his wife?
If you believe it does, then provide chapter and verse the proof of this.
Is it a fundamentalist teaching? (I’m not asking whether this is or has been a common practise, I’m asking about Biblical rules for living here).
Prove it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
dlr(m)
As an observer to this discourse, I can’t help but note that Katie didn’t say, as you pretend, that ‘the Bible allows a man to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb’.
Katie said (of the defendant)that:
“he’d likely quote that ‘the Bible allows a man to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb’.”
I agree with katie, that he would likely quote that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Greenfly,
I think it is a bit presumptious to assume that he’d quote such a thing. If he had half a brain he’d have kept his mouth tightly shut like his lawyer would (or atleast should) have told him.
Katie said in the following paragraph of that post:
“This is the kind of situation that the fundies are trying to legitimise, by running cases to defend their violence, and their disregard for the rights of women and children to live without daily abuse in their lives.”
So she clearly makes the assertion that it is:
A) a biblical teaching.
B) that it is the belief of fundamental christians.
I want to know why she (and it appears you also) think that is the case.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Presume and assume are pretty similar, I have to agree.
Are you presuming that the defendant had, as you say, ‘half a brain’?
This might explain why he had been hitting people.
Katie’s words, as quoted by you, are correct. This is the kind of situation etc.
The only assertion that I can see Katie has made re: staves, switches, whips etc. is that she believes that fellow (the one you believe has ‘half a brain’) would have said:
“‘the Bible allows a man to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb’.”
I reckon she’s right.
That fundamental Christians believe that to be the case would come as no surprise to me.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
That would not prevent someone from imagining that there is… and the exclusive brethren greatly damaged any respect for fundamentalism that any of the Green Party membership might hold.
Even though some fundamentalists are a lot smarter than that.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Groooooooooooaaaaaaaaaannnnnnn!!
So the greens are back to Christian bashing again.
The problem with your arguments is that your fears are just imaginary “what if’s” and not based on any real world evidence.
I would bet there would be a higher proportion of Christians appalled by the alkathene pipe beatings than non believers. Can you guys find any real evidence to back up your default religious bigotry for a change?
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Shunda – followers of Family First should expect nothing else from the likes of me
I’m arguing with those types, not Christians.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
I would bet there would be a higher proportion of Christians appalled by the alkathene pipe beatings than non believers. Can you guys find any real evidence to back up your default religious bigotry for a change?
Unlike Shunda’s claim, which he makes himself – also with no evidence – oops!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
We did warn you!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
And I have been warning you guys of a backlash against all things green for at least 18 months.
The opposition to the national party is in a shambles, why did that happen?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
“Unlike Shunda’s claim, which he makes himself – also with no evidence – oops!”
So you’re glorying in the fact that we are both fools?
Not much better valis!
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Shunda – opposition to all things green? – the Warm Homes initiative is being lauded right now.
Opposition to National’s ‘standards’ scheme is strong.
Opposition to the National Party is growing, in my view, from the hypnotised acceptance that manafested around election time.
I don’t think you are seeing things clearly.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I’d note (again) it was the defendant’s lawyer that linked his actions to the bible, not the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Look guys, I think the dude should be prosecuted for what he did and I think the reference to the bible is idiotic from the lawyer.
I guess I just think some of the ensuing comments linking this to Christian doctrine is more than a little ridiculous.
Alkathene wasn’t even invented then!
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Now about non-believers on the other hand, how many have said they did it bacause their science book told them to?
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
Valis I don’t even think the dude was a believer, it just seems like some desperate appeal to authority to avoid punishment.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Valis, Katie said
“This is the kind of situation that the fundies are trying to legitimise, by running cases to defend their violence, and their disregard for the rights of women and children to live without daily abuse in their lives.”
I just don’t see it Valis, Katie’s fears are unjustified.
Just cause some nut mentions the bible doesn’t mean the “fundies” are all out to get ya.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Nah, not so Shunda, this was a case of dlr, exploiting one comment in a post and distorting the context in which it was made to portray the issue as one of Greens vs Christians. Since, you have responded exactly as dlr wanted – your nationalism as a Christian was preyed on and exploited for political profit, just as surely as a mineral resource in the middle of a small town.
There is nothing unusual about that, millions of poor Americans vote Republican simply because this means they are “on the side of the USA (a true patriot)”, “part of a Christian nation”, “in a land where the dream is that anyone can become rich and successful” and “a Christian who will be blessed by God
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
This is a case of “Do unto others, like what your mongrel parents did unto you” isn’t it?
I wonder what the kid will do in years to come?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I selected it because it highlights that there are people out there with such a warped concept of parenting that they genuinely believe thrashing a child with a piece of alkathene pipe, and giving him a kicking in the process, is justified in the name of discipline. The fact that he attempted to use his Christianity, rather than some other excuse, to justify his action is incidental to the issue I was highlighting.
I don’t care if the perpetrator is Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or atheist – there can be no excuse for violence such as this against children.
As you suggest, I think the vast majority of Christians would agree.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
@SPC.
I genuinely wanted to know where that “the Bible allows a man to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb” came from, and whether there is a REAL Biblical principle to that effect. It was not something the Defendant was reported to have said, so Katie must have got it from somewhere, and her falicious quote starts with “the bible says”, so one assumes that she believes it to be at least a Biblical principle, and her following sentence infers that she believes it to be a typical “fundie” defence for their actions.
Katies following announcement about “knowing” the bible and then failure to answer my basic questions leves one to conclude she had a realisation that she doesn’t know the bible, and/or her position was a gross slander against Christian Fundamentalist principles.
Greenfly shows that his bias is so great that he goes into a great flying tizz every time Family First gets mentioned. And I quote him “Shunda – followers of Family First should expect nothing else from the likes of me
”
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
“your nationalism as a Christian was preyed on and exploited for political profit”
Nationalism as a Christian? not so sure about that.
NZ is a very very different nation to the USA, I have been to the States twice and can tell you that Christians here are nothing like the people over there.
The closest we have is probably Destiny church, but even they are different and they are almost universally disliked by all other Christians in NZ, especially since they did the whole pledge to Brian thing.
We are a very different nation compared to the states SPC, I don’t know if you have been there or not but the difference is quite remarkable.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“I genuinely wanted to know…”
You did not.
Your dogged behaviour focused on your biblical fascination, reveals you to be just the sort of ‘fundie’ I’d expect to support the ridiculous and dangerous Family First.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Oop’s I did it again! (mentioned Family First) oops and again. Now we won’t get anything sensible from greenfly all day.
But seriously Greenfly, I am not conflicted as you suggest. I couldn’t be a true “fundie” and lie about my intentions. Your “dogged” attempts to detract the attention away from my questions and unfounded slander and name calling show just how shallow and baseless you actually are.
And who said anything about “my supporting Family First”. As for you calling them “ridiculous and dangerous” I’d like to know why you believe that? (Now I am baiting you!) Otherwise I might just go and become another one of their ‘fundie’ paid up supporters.
Are those wings of yours on fire yet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
dlr –
Do you support Family First? (I’m not meaning financially)
(Looking forward to your fundamentally honest reply).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Greenfly,
Why? What relevance does that have to the discourse other than the mention of “Family First” sending you into a tiz? Why do you expect a straight answer from me when I have yet to see you post a straight answer to my questions?
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Honest answer please dlr. You’re already looking suspiciously evasive with your reluctance to be open and answer my question. I’m already assuming that you are a strong advocate and supporter for Family First.
Why won’t you come clean?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Greenfly,
Be honest, give me your straight answer. You’ve been suspiciously evasive in with your reluctance to admit you believe that all Fundamentalist Christians are Wife Bashers on principle, despite not being able to produce a shred of evidence to back up that assertion. I suspect you are unable to prove your inferred view with either a bible text or a widely accepted fundamental Christian teaching.
Why don’t you come clean Greenfly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
I’ve no idea if the ‘rule of thumb’ comes from the Bible.
I never said it did.
Nor have I said that I believe that,
“all Fundamentalist Christians are Wife Bashers”, as you wrote.
If you can find where I’ve said either, cut and paste to prove your point.
Now.
Your turn.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Ok Greenfly,
I am a subscriber to Family Firsts weekly update mailing list, just as I am a subscriber to this blog and some others. However, as my subscription to this blog doesn’t make me a card carrying Green Party supporter despite my belief that I have a responsibilty to look after the environment and minimise my personal environmental impact, neither does my subscription to Family Firsts weekly email list and my agreement with the general premise of less Government interference in Family Life make me a card carrying Family First supporter.
Now as to a reminder when I asked for a “Chapter and Verse” reference in the context of the Bible, you retorted with “No doubt, dlr, but if you haven’t already got ‘rule of thumb’ memorised, it’s better that you search for it yourself.” from which we can infer that you indeed believe the Bible teaches that.
When I again pressed for a straight answer, you again retorted “Really Old Testament.”
And following my tongue in cheek remark about missing pages you replied “dlr – I’ll be straight with you. The words quoted do come from the pages you are missing.”
And when Katie pontificated on her biblical prowess again without specific biblical reference, you followed with “Katie – those are the very points I was about to make!!!”
So it is clear from those postings that either you are a complete clueless buffoon and should have kept your trap shut, or you sincerely believe without a shred of evidence that “rule of thumb” comes from the bible.
Further more you in regards to the premise of ‘Christian Fundamentalists beliefs about Wife beating’ “That fundamental Christians believe that to be the case would come as no surprise to me.” is a clear indication that you’d at a minimum like to believe it but probably have no proof of the premise.
But never mind I guess this is all moot if you simply are a “fundie” basher because of the hell of it. Or is their some underlying reason for your hatred of all things fundamentally christian?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
dlr – you are
“a subscriber to Family Firsts weekly update mailing list”,
lacking in a sense of humour
and truly an idiot.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Greenfly – by what twisted logic do you come to that?
You however go into a tiz whenever you think you’ve found another Family First supporter. Are you jealous of their nationwide appeal or something???
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I’m averse to their antediluvian witterings, yes.
Surely you’re not going to defend their weak-minded rantings, given that you are merely the recipient of their,
“weakly up-dates”?
(and it’s ‘nationwide appall’)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Surely your not also a subscriber to Family First are you??? Come on do tell!
You seem to have some fairly firm views on them, indicating an intimate knowledge.
Or … does that come from a large cranial vacuum between your ears. (Does it really echo in there? Oh hang on that would require air…).
And you said I had no sense of humour? (:-P
Do you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
greenfly and dlr, stick to the issues and cut the personal attacks or I’ll be forced to intervene.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
dlr-
I was a member of a fundamentalist christian church (specifically, an off-shoot of the open brethren), I left after 12 years of marriage and about 2 years of abuse from my husband.
On the off-chance that any of my children ever read this, I’m not cataloguing the abuse.
Suffice to say, that when I spoke to women within our congregation, I was advised not to be ‘unsubmissive’, and that I must accept my husband’s dominion if I was to stay in communion in the assembly.
I left, after taking legal advice, and suffering bruising that took 3 weeks to disappear.
I had numerous bible chapters and verses quoted to me during the 20 years of my association with the church, and in all that time, I obeyed – right up until I was beaten in front of my toddler, who thankfully does not remember this.
I left because although we didn’t use corporal punishment on our children (despite being advised very strongly to do so), I was concerned that he would begin to hit the children as well as me, if they spoke out at what was happening.
I was excommunicated, despite meeting with 3 elder women, who listened to my testimony of what had happened.
My ex-husband denied everything, and as it is a biblical premise that the head of the household is responsible for all of the household, I could not be accepted if my word contradicted his.
Our initial arguments were over his adulterous affair with a woman that he worked with, which he also denied when questioned, despite continuing to be in contact with her, and going to Austalia to visit her, shortly after I left him.
Ironically, she broke off with him because she discoverd he’d been lying to her as well.
I did actually get my bible off the back shelf of the bookshelf, to open it up and find chapter and verse to quote to you.
When it came to the crunch, the indoctrination that I suffered for 20 years made it impossible for me to look up and read those chapters, I actually felt sweaty and nauseous even contemplating the act.
These are symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which I occasionally suffer from now.
Read the books in the New Testament that I listed, they are full of chapters requiring women to obey particular rules about dress, bearing, submissiveness. They re-iterate the old Judaic laws about then uncleanness of women, and add a few more to boot.
They are the major reason why modern mainstream churches have such virulent arguments about the use of women in positions such as pastors, priests, deacons, vergers, etc.
I differentiate between the old-style fundamentalists (Wesleyan/Methodist, Baptists, Brethren) and the newer charismatic fundamentalists (AOG, Church of Christ, Destiny, and the various odd-balls that seem to pop up under various names – here in Welli, we have The Rock, City Church, Arise! aand a few others) – because the older ones are more likely to refuse women as pastors, etc, and be more intent on the right of a man to physically punish/assault his family members. This also includes ‘elder abuse’, which is on the rise, mostly amongst men who are caring for elderly widowed parents in an attempt to keep an inheritance they don’t want to spend on adequate care in a home for the aged, especially with elderly folk who have need of nursing care.
I don’t belong to any community of faith now.
I certainly don’t beleive any of the verses in the Bible as literal truth anymore.
I ask you to read them as an information gathering exercise, so that you can see how far from reality the people who are brainwashed have gone, from contemporary modern law and cultural practice.
And how dangerous it is to rely on a text written 2000 years ago, give or take one man’s lifetime, to guide a civilisation that has evolved and grown throughout those 20 centuries, making mistakes continuously, and creating civil law to prevent the same mistakes being made again.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
Dearest Frog, don’t feel forced! Rest assured, there’s no need for intervention, amphibian, divine or otherwise.
I’m just playing with delirium and doubtless, she feels she’s toying with me.
Having a Family Firster on board does give me the jitters though!
What if she snaps!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
For example while Christianity asserts the primacy of the husband in the household, the exercise of power over (women) others by phyiscal discipline was a cultural outreach not actually sanctioned by the religion, but one tolerated by it. That said Christian nations allowed the lawful use of such violence for many centuries and the church/religion never challenged it while it occured – because they saw it as consistent with male authority and leadership.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Whaddaya reckon, dlr?
Husband the head of the household?
Or not?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Katie,
Thank you. A simple “I don’t want to explain further” would have sufficed.
I am deeply sorry to hear of your experience, and greatly saddened to hear that there are groups within the Christian Community that believe they have justification for that sort of behaviour. I believe there is no Biblical justification for spousal or familial abuse, which is the reason for my interest in where you came by that belief.
I sincerely apologise if I have caused you any pain in raising these
questions.
DLR.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Apology accepted.
Please, do read further textual material on this subject before debating, or assuming that another person’s position is based on a ‘hand-wave’ liberal ideology.
‘fly, spc – thanks for holding the thread & expressing the support you gave.
frog- thanks for letting this debate go to resolution, your comments noted and respected.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
All this reaffirms my loathing of religion. Belief I respect, religion I despise.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Guys Katie has been hurt by extremists that happened to be religious, not religion as a whole.
I thought generalisations were something tolerant people try to avoid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Greenfly what is it about family first that so grates you, I am intrigued.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Sanctimonious moralizers, Shunda.
Of
the
worst
kind.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Shunda – your comment that the aforementioned Brethren ‘happened’ to be religious is funny!
‘Happened to be ..”
Oh dear!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I said extremists greenfly, which they are.
Must say greenfly, your exchanges with dlr remind me of the many scraps we have had on this blog, but not so much any more. What happened? like cats and dogs we were!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
You’ve matured, Shunda, undergone a sea-change of which you may be only faintly aware.
Well done.
(There’s more to come btw).
dlr has far to go, but with my help …
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I am drinking cider by the way.
OMG I just figured it all out!
you have subdued me somehow with some sort of hocus pocus-ery which manifests itself in reduced ranting and increased cider consumption.
I’m onto you fly!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Apples have a lot to answer for
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
It was for your own good Shunda.
Come sit down beside me
I said to myself
And although it doesn’t make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence.
Michael Leunig
(a poem for cider-drinkers)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
That’s a wee gem there greenfly.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Shunda, with respect, it IS religion as a whole that I despise.
Believe what you wish (and I include non belief in that) but keep it to yourself.
Sooo much of the worlds evil is done in the name of some crackpot trying to impose his/her belief on others.
All the other animals seem to get by just fine without it, I’m sure they have belief though.
Do unto other as you would have done unto you, works fine by me.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“Sooo much of the worlds evil is done in the name of some crackpot trying to impose his/her belief on others.”
Yes I agree, I just tend to think this is an issue where ever you find people, not just religion.
But in saying that my own experience with Christianity has been mixed to say the least, my wife and I have endured some real nasty stuff.
Perhaps I need to re-look at the way I discuss these things, have I been coming across more as an apologist for the church?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Samiam, so much good has been done in the world in the name of religion too, though mostly by those who have just gotten on with doing their bit rather the pontificating about what everybody else should do, believe etc.
I agree that many have done absolute wickedness in the name of God, Christ, Alah, (God of atheism?) and any other deity or that one might call upon or not, but that doesn’t mean that those deities necessarily prescribed or approved of that sort of wickedness.
Shunda, one has to remember that the church is full of Sinners, and some of them are real scumbags, and do untold damage to the image of God. There is no perfect church, and there are no perfect christians/buddhists/hindu’s/Moslems/atheists etc. Just some are better at it than others, and some just pretend they are… And there are those that cause us to wonder why they (or we) are there. If your perfect then you don’t need a deity to help you, so why bother with church or any other religious gathering. But chances are none of us are perfect…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
There’s only one unforgivable sin guys!
Blasphemy – not of Jesus, not of God …
but of the Holy Ghost!
Don’t say naughty things about the Almighty Spook …
or you’re stuffed!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“I wouldn’t put it that way, but you have said some things that make you look in denial about the downside of religion and how very commonly such things occur.”
I could go on all day about the downsides Valis, trust me, but to expose all the dirty laundry here would surely only continue to paint a one sided picture, I am keen to present another side to things.
I also see much of the criticism as being blown out of proportion.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
greenfly – You surprise me. It almost sounds scriptural too. Your not a closet christian are you?…
No…
Do you understand what you said actually means???
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
dlr – something I heard from Matthew (or was it Mark? Or both?)
Do I understand what it means?
Perhaps.
You’ve an interpretation you’d like to share?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Greenfly,
Why does it need interpreting? I thought it was pretty clear myself.
Do you struggle with the concept? Or is it the application?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dlr – you’re right, it needs no interpretation. It’s as clear as a bell to me. Always has been.
I struggle with neither concept nor application, but thanks for your concern.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – Your welcome
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Apparently. I haven’t checked my handy bible to see…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What if they do it standing up? Or one on his/her knees? Or in the “lion and the cheesegrater” position. None of those are “a man lies with a man”.
Leviticus wasn’t really all that sexually imaginative, was he? His sex life must have been extraordinarily boring, so I guess that helps to explain why he comes across as a homophobic bigoted wowser!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If a man lies with a straight man ..?
John Key lies with a straight face!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Or in the “lion and the cheesegrater” position.
I thought I was pretty experienced, but I’ve clearly missed something.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
““If a man lies with a man…They must be put to death.”
Well Rimu you will be relieved to know that Jesus decided killing people was not the best way to resolve such issues.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If a man lies with a straight man ..?
John Key lies with a straight face!”
Lies-with-a-straight-face?
Is that his Apache name?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here you go Valis. Doesn’t describe what it is though.
Can’t find any references in Greek mythology either. I actually thought it was from the Kama Sutra, but can’t find anything there either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Similar to the Marmot and the garlic-crusher
(guaranteed to bring a tear to your eye)
Ah, the Scripturalites!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wondered how long before something like this would come up.
If we want to have a discussion on the mosaic (sexual or other) laws and their relevance in todays society, maybe frog would like to create a new topic for it or maybe one called “Bashing Christianity” if that fits the potential subject matter better.
I’d love to engage a serious discussion on this, but fear that we are getting a bit off topic now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mosaic? Isn’t that something that tomato and tobacco growers dread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_mosaic_virus
dlr – I thought your ‘discussions’ only went as far as to say,
“Why does it need interpreting? I thought it was pretty clear myself.”
Are you willing, now, to sully your virginal understanding by engaging in messy debate with philistines?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Are you willing, now, to sully your virginal understanding by engaging in messy debate with philistines? ”
[SBF-greenfy, 20 demerits for being a philistine]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s ‘messy philistine’ to you, Barunda!
I wonder about ‘demerits’
Were there ‘merits’ awarded at some point?
I didn’t notice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
I thought you’d jump at the chance to debate. I’m happy to engage as time allows (I have to work still as well!), and the debate is good and there is not too much slander and personal attacks. I’m not sure frog’s blog is a suitable venue tho.
Frog??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dlr – I’m a poor debater, more interested in lampooning fools than teasing out minutiae of topics that are of very slight interest to most people.
Put something up, mind your manners and we’ll see how it goes. Don’t fear the Frog (just as I don’t fear God).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly – I don’t fear Frog, but am just being polite as it is his blog.
Are there things about my netiquette that disturb you?
Let’s just see what comes along….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dlr – “Are there things about my netiquette that disturb you?”
does that come from a large cranial vacuum between your ears. (Does it really echo in there? Oh hang on that would require air…)
Nope. But it might pay to get someone else to do the ‘humour’.
Btw – only a fool doesn’t fear the Omnipotent Frog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So. Sun-worship. What’s wrong with that?
Ra ra ra, I say!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dlr
Try the open thread. It is there to be jacked.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do it dlr! this is going to be fun
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly – I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. My sincerest apologies. I assumed you were a hardened ‘lampooner of fools’ that would be able to take a bit of your own medicine.
As far as virginal – I worked a number of years in engineering shops where obscenity, and filthy talk was the norm along with posters of naked women and pornographic magazines littering the toilets. They were especially harsh on wooses and christians. So no I’ve pretty much seen and heard it all.
Sun Worship… Would it be considered blasphemy by Ra if you put on sunscreen??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dlr – my point was that you miss my point, as you just showed.
I’m a great taker of my own medicine. Serve it up, but at least make it funny, not faux-funny.
In saying that, nice work with the sunscreen line
I give it a SPF rating of 30!
Ra is unforgiving to fools who go out in the noon-day sun (mad dogs, Englishmen etc.) but it’s only natural.
Does Paganism frighten you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does Paganism frighten you?
Nope. Should it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dlr – haven’t seen ‘The Wickerman’, eh!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The original, of course
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The remake is trash, Edward Woodward’s a treasure.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“The remake is trash, Edward Woodward’s a treasure. ”
What’s it about?
By the way greenfly, I see you have extended your cider drinking incantations against me to include my wife as well.
Things were so much easier before, she had the White, I had the Red.
But now there is tension as the last glass approaches, is this part of your cunning plan?
Be careful dlr, these pagans have strange powers.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
What’s it about?
Hmmmmmm…..
harvest, maypoles, masks, Mr Punch, virgins, Christians, apples, temptation, community, fecundity, barrenness,death, stoicism, celebration – it’s got everything, Shunda.
Mrs Barunda? As I expected. You’ll enjoy what I’ve got coming up next for the two of you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Be careful dlr, these pagans have strange powers.
Romans 3:38 & 39 “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor heavenly rulers, nor things that are present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
What do I have to fear?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dlr – I had hoped you wouldn’t resort to showing off yer book lernin’ but if that’s the way of it, I’ll hook out my copy of The Screwtape Letters (printed back to front) and we’ll throw quotes at each other.
Have you settled on a topic for debate yet?
You Christians are so … waiting-around-for-something-to-happen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
What’s your beef with a few Bible verses. I thought you’d jump at the opportunity to twist it and make fun….
You Christians are so … waiting-around-for-something-to-happen.
It’s called the ‘end times’, ‘armegeddon’, ‘judgement day’….
What are you waiting for?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What are you waiting for?
Your idea for debate.
So that we don’t have to wait forever, I choose, ‘end times’.
You expecting Christ on a cloud? The blare of trumpets?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wickerman, the original…. Awesome, one of the only horrors that has ever scared me, usually i find them funny.
Give me Druids over Pagans any day.
I see Jedi came up a statistically significant at the last census, now that’s funny! I must remember that next time.
May (the 4th) be with you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Britt’s performance was memorable too, as was that of her body-double.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“You expecting Christ on a cloud? The blare of trumpets?”
May be. Are you referring to the Matthew 24 prophecy?
If so, that prophecy concerns 2 events, one being the fall of Jerusalem which happened in 72 AD, the other of course being the end times.
Whatever way Christ comes, be it on a cloud with trumpets and all, two things are made clear.
It will come as a great surprise at a time nobody expects it (vis the great flood), and the whole world will know at once. I have no doubt that it will be a terrible event making “the wickerman” look like a lighthearted fairy tale, atleast for those who aren’t ready. There will be no escaping it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now that reminds me of Rowan Atkinson’s skit, as the devil, welcoming the latest intake to hell. Fun
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So you don’t discount the cloud-mobile?
Isn’t that a bit silly?
“It will come at a time nobody expects it”
What! Is that unexpectedness prophesied and if so, why couldn’t they have made a firm date? How hard is that, for someone with the inside running?
Not convinced.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dlr wrote: “It will come at a time nobody expects it”
Phew. People are expecting it at the moment, so I guess we’re safe.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
So you don’t discount the cloud-mobile?
Isn’t that a bit silly?
Well No. You’d think he’d want to stand out!
I just don’t think borrowing the US’s Airforce 1 would cut it, and the space shuttle is old, clunky, uncomfortable and probably a bit too unreliable.
And he certainly isn’t going to book a flight on Air NZ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What! Is that unexpectedness prophesied and if so, why couldn’t they have made a firm date? How hard is that, for someone with the inside running?
Maybe it’s to keep us on our toes.
I’ve seen a bumper sticker around that says summit like “He who plans to repent at the eleventh hour, might die at 10:30″
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)