2011 November archive at Being Frank

Archive for November, 2011

Nov

May the best party win…

By Kereopa 5 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

The election is upon us.

Following the scurrilous tea tape scandal where the media howled from their pedestal before realising few New Zealanders agreed with them, the week ahead looks likely to be pretty average; a good, old fashioned yawn fest.

What has struck me most about this election (besides it’s short, sprint-like pace) has been the sheer boredom of the campaign. It’s been fairly tedious. I’m a political junkie – I thrive on the political section of the paper – but even I have to admit that both National and Labour seem to have based their whole campaigns on being as cardboard-esque as possible.

For the first time, we’re looking at having a party [National] who might be in a position to govern alone. All minor parties, save Greens, have diminished and some bordering on political oblivion. It’s hardly entertainment. But then, should it be?

A vote is a serious civic duty – it’s just a shame when there’s so little tension or choice between parties or political . Maybe that’s more down to National having pretty much squared this one up since day one. Love or hate his party or political views, John Key has done a remarkable job as Prime Minister. Its been a turbulent few years, with Pike River, Christchurch earthquakes, finance company collapses, the Rena disaster and, of course, the continuing global financial crisis.

Perhaps we should just be glad that we have a functioning political system that yields a choice in the first place – note Libya, Egypt, Greece or Italy. It’s certainly a time to reflect on how well blest New Zealand is.

As Catholics, do moral issues we’ve discussed briefly on this blog, such as euthanasia, abortion, or gay adoption influence how you vote? Or do you focus on policy like creating jobs or reducing public sector; or vision, like a brighter future for your kids or better savings when you’re older?

What determines your vote? And why?

Our Lady Help of Christians, patron saint of New Zealand, pray for us.

Nov

Restoration

By Voice in the wilderness Closed

Categories: Being Frank...

Late last week my state school hosted an amazing Christian band called Restoration. They are a group who were formed in a boys’ home in Aranui, Christchurch, called Restoration House.

Not only was their music fantastic, it was also entirely Christian based.

What I found amazing was that my state school embraced them, praised them and even prayed with them, with not a mention of the idea of a religious group being out of place in a state school. The teachers and senior managers of the school recognised something deeply powerful and good in the message that Restoration talked and sung about.

Apparantly they have been to around 250 schools around NZ, sharing the gospel at each one. And in case you were wondering, their Christian identity was not subtle, vague or hidden. It was out for the whole audience to soak up.

I highly recommend watching a few of their clips on youtube, or perhaps even thinking about inviting them to your school, parish or community to perform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eydiIbSI1Bg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEaV-96sEtk&feature=related

Nov

“Look, Scratchy, it’s our new friend, Poochie”

By Methuselah's Beard Closed

Categories: Being Frank...

Did anyone else see the news that Pamela Anderson is due to play the Virgin Mary in a Christmas special? She will be performing said role in “A Russell Peters Christmas”. I usually find Russell Peters quite funny but I am already cringing inwardly at the car crash that could result here. To quote, “The show promises to be “tastier and more dangerous than a cup of spiked eggnog” and will pay “tribute to the holidays with a mix of stand-up, sketch, stop-motion animation, and musical performances,” say producers.”

Apparently this is Christianity’s fault according to the Pastor Tom in his article in the Boston Liberal Christian Examiner (possibly a branch of the Judean People’s Front or the People’s Front of Judea) as we as Christians need to be more relevant to appeal to the young people of today, otherwise they will turn to Russell Peters for solace. Or something along those lines.

And according to some other dude who I can’t really be bothered naming, people should be encouraged by this as it means Pamela is familiar with the bible story. Said unnamed person also said that it’s all ok because Pamela Anderson, ex-Playboy model, is not actually Mary but an actress. Just like Sir Ian McKellan isn’t actually Gandalf (but no word on whether he’s actually Magneto). Wow that’s for the distinction, I guess it’s all ok then. I will now wait with eager anticipation for the movie with Mel Gibson in the role of Muhammad. And that will be ok with all the Muslims out there because Mel is only an actor.

I’m ready to file this under ‘Bad Ideas’. Where is the outrage from the Christian community I wonder.

Nov

Atheists that have something sensible to say

By Opthomistic Closed

Categories: Being Frank...

The New Atheists have been criticised by many Christians and other religious believers and slavishly followed by a large number of pop atheists in the first world. But within academic circles it is widely recognised that the arguments of these new atheists are pathetic, and lose to classical theist arguments almost instantly.

Atheist Philosopher Quentin Smith in The Metaphilosophy of naturalism:

If each naturalist who does not specialize in the philosophy of religion (i.e., over ninety-nine percent of naturalists) were locked in a room with theists who do specialize in the philosophy of religion, and if the ensuing debates were refereed by a naturalist who had a specialization in the philosophy of religion, the naturalist referee could at most hope the outcome would be that “no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the rationality of faith,” although I expect the most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate.

Due to the typical attitude of the contemporary naturalist… the vast majority of naturalist philosophers have come to hold (since the late 1960s) an unjustified belief in naturalism. Their justifications have been defeated by arguments developed by theistic philosophers, and now naturalist philosophers, for the most part, live in darkness about the justification for naturalism. They may have a true belief in naturalism, but they have no knowledge that naturalism is true since they do not have an undefeated justification for their belief. If naturalism is true, then their belief in naturalism is accidentally true.

Atheist philosopher William Lycan in Giving Dualism its Due:

we [materialists] also always hold our opponents to higher standards of argumentation than we obey ourselves.

[Parenthesis my clarification]

Atheist philosopher Tyler Burge in Mind-Body Causation and Explanatory Practice:

materialism is not established, or even clearly supported, by science

Legal and political philosopher and professor at NYU Jeremy Waldron (a Kiwi!) in God, Locke, and Equality:

Secular theorists often assume they know what a religious argument is like: they present it as a crude prescription from God, backed up with threat of hellfire, derived from general or particular revelation, and they contrast it with the elegant complexity of a philosophical argument by Rawls (say) or Dworkin. With this image in mind, they think it obvious that religious argument should be excluded from public life… But those who have bothered to make themselves familiar with existing religious-based arguments in modern political theory know that this is mostly a travesty…

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel in The Last Word:

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind… This is a somewhat ridiculous situation… [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.

Atheist Philosopher John Searle in Mind: A Brief Introduction:

it [materialism] is accepted without question and… provides the framework within which other questions can be posed, addressed, and answered

[Parenthesis my clarification]

H/T Ed Feser

Nov

The Film Distribution Conspiracy

By Inkling Closed

Categories: Being Frank...

I’m not one for conspiracy theories – usually. But there’s a point at which one can’t help but wonder who exactly is controlling which films get through to us in little New Zealand, and for what reasons they’re letting certain films through – and holding others back. Considering the influence that movies and TV programmes have on popular culture and, it must be said, on the attitudes of young people growing up in our society, there ought to be more of a fuss made about this than there currently is.

The particular case I have in mind is Here Be Dragons, directed by Roland Joffe. It has a world-class director; it has received rave reviews overseas; it’s a great story and it’s a period piece which you’d think would make it a must for all film distributors, as the historical drama is all the rage at the moment (e.g. The Kennedy’s, Downton Abbey, South Riding, The Hour, Mad Men…) The problem with this movie is that it’s about a hero – and that hero happens to be Catholic. Worse than that, the hero is the founder of Opus Dei. So despite the fact that it’s a very good film, that it has great themes – which our society probably needs to see – and that it shows an important piece of 20th Century History (the Spanish Civil War), film distributors in Australia and New Zealand are simply not interested in picking it up. So we won’t see it here – unless someone does something about it. But who will do anything?

To me it’s another case – as in bookstores – of a select few deciding what the public wants, and giving it to them – or perhaps telling the public that this is what they want, and excluding all other options. For young Catholics looking for a vocation in the world, I’d suggest that owing to the clear need to have well-informed, balanced, unbiased people in film and TV production and distribution, the entertainment industry is a vocation well worth considering.

Nov

And the first shall be last…

By Marty Rethul 6 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

If we all cast our minds back, we will recall the heady anticipation that gripped the faithful in New Zealand when we heard that we would be the first country in the Latin Rite to experience the fullness of the new Missal last year.

Shortlived was the joy, however, as the bishops blamed Rome for being tardy in its granting of the recognitio required before we could implement our local, specialised, version of the Missal for New Zealand. Yes, we got the ‘people’s parts’ through, but it was something of a let-down really; the parties of welcome and the liturgy of farewell to the old Missal all a bit hollow.

All was not lost, however, and soon the balloons and party poppers were on back-order as we were told that the first Sunday in Advent 2011 would be the Day of Days. Finally, our long-awaited Missal would be with us. Granted, it was a blow that we weren’t able to beat out even Australia, but we all accepted that mistakes can be made, even in Rome, apparently.

As I looked at the disappointed shaking of heads on Sunday, following revelations of the latest setback to the implementation of our Missal, I began to wonder.

This whole Missal thing has been a litany of disaster, as we have lurched from false dawn to false dawn. It puts the claim that Rome was the problem at first into sharper relief now doesn’t it?

Why is it that we can’t even produce a Missal that lies flat?

I mean, we all know how dissatisfied the bishop of Dunedin is with the translation, but surely this hasn’t stretched as far as sabotaging the actual publication of it.

Answer this though: when was the last time our bishops produced a new, full, Missal? You know, to replace those worn out with use since the ’70s? I don’t think they have. We use those (unapproved) little green booklety thingies here – no Missal for us thanks.

And when we need to produce a new Missal, we can’t even get that right.

When days are slow up in Rome, I bet they tune in to New Zealand for a good chuckle.

Nov

The Case Against Euthanasia

By Kereopa 3 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

Following on from last week’s post about politicians supporting euthanasia, Labour leader Phil Goff has joined the bandwagon:

“For myself, I always want to have the choice of dying with dignity. That’s my individual decision.”

What isn’t apparent straightaway is Goff’s reasoning why he supports a quick death over seeing his father-in-law suffer.

“He died basically of lung cancer, but he actually died of a morphine overdose. Why would I want to see him suffer in pain in the last days of his life?”

There is no mention of whether this is what his father-in-law wanted, or whether its right to prioritise one’s wish to end queasiness over another’s right to life.

Supporters of euthanasia are primarily driven by wishing an end to their own suffering, rather than showing support in those last desperate hours. No matter how painful or dreadful, I would wish for my family to be strong and courageous in my last days, rather than scheming ways to end the horror show they’re expected to endure.

This is a great case against euthanasia: The Pragmatic Case Against Euthanasia.

The following is a presentation by Nathaniel Centre director John Kleinsman at the St John’s Public Issues Forum, held at St John’s-in-the-City (Presbyterian) Conference Centre, Wellington, on September 29. The forum was entitled “Voluntary Euthanasia: What are the Ethical, Medical, Legal, Social and Spiritual Issues?” The Nathaniel Centre is the New Zealand Catholic bioethics centre.

Let me begin by first laying my own cards on the table. I am implacably opposed to euthanasia — that is my strongly held personal view, and you will probably not be surprised by that, given my role as the director of a Catholic bioethics centre.
Now it also happens that I am implacably opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia. You might think the two statements, being opposed to euthanasia and being opposed to its legalisation, go together . . . and they do in one sense. But in another sense they need not go together, because I believe that you can be personally in favour of euthanasia while also being opposed to its legalisation.

Not many people appreciate this distinction; it relies on being able to recognise and separate the notion of individual choice from the societal consequences that might flow from certain freedoms. It’s a distinction that I will come back to.

St. Lawrence O’Toole, pray for us.