I was flicking through the NZ Herald online this week when I came across this article: ‘Church forces ‘secular NZ’ retreat’
The Catholic Bishops were not happy with the statement that religion is only for the “private sphere”. Understandably so. For starters we would miss out on lots of good debates! But seriously… as a keen anthropologist I know that many cultures would think we’re crazy trying to separate spiritual beliefs from political systems and everyday social issues. The Church’s input is necessary in politics and public life. If the Pope hadn’t got involved in political matters more than a few international situations may have turned out quite differently (for the worse). The Church has poured so much of herself into the public sphere in terms of service and the common good. I know that I might be slightly biased as a Catholic, but I think we should be more thankful for what the Church has done in NZ history.
As for NZ being described as a secular state… well I guess I’ve probably talked about ‘our secular society’ more than once in terms of attitude and behaviour… and we don’t have a specific prescribed state religion…hmmm… I was pondering this when I recalled a morning a couple of weeks ago when I was teaching a Canadian our NZ national anthem (as you do), and was rather proud in telling her that our national anthem is really a prayer (actually I’m quite interested to know how atheists and people of other beliefs deal with this… do you refuse to sing? change the words? or stand with everyone else at the test match dressed in black and sing along pretending the words don’t mean anything?).
One other thing caught my attention in the Herald article – the mention of “the so-called fourth article” of Te Tiriti O Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi). Not many Catholics I talk to know that this fourth article was insisted upon by Bishop Pompallier, first Catholic Bishop of NZ. The article protects the right to religious freedom.
I have been to the Waitangi Treaty Grounds twice in the last two years and both times had guided tours. The first time our tour guide told us all about this fourth article and the French Bishop who pushed for its inclusion. The second time, with a different guide, the article wasn’t mentioned at all. This was getting on my nerves so like a true ‘goody-goody’ I put up my hand and said, “I’ve heard there was a fourth article”. The guide didn’t seem too impressed with my interjection and explained, “well, yes, a Catholic Bishop turned up at the last minute from the Hokianga and wanted an agreement on another article but it was only agreed on verbally” (in fact, my research tells me that it is actually written in the Waitangi Treaty but only in the Maori version). It seems everyone has their own version of history to tell.
The Bishops of today are following in the footsteps of Pompallier, making sure the Church’s voice is heard. Good on them, I say.
A great NZ law academic who writes about secularism/church and state/liberalism is Rex Ahdar. I thoroughly recommend him to anyone interested in this area. His argument essentially runs that secularism doesn’t provide a neutral playing ground for all religions to flourish in the intellectual market place since secularism is itslef one of the competing ideologies. A great example of a world renowned NZ thinker.
I am sympathetic to Bishop Tamaki’s point on this issue. I was disappointed that all Christians in New Zealand did not join this debate and get some serious recognition for Christianity as the dominant religion in New Zealand. New Zealand was formed with Christianity in mind as the dominant religion. Bishop Pompallier was influencing the situation to maintain freedom for Catholics as well as the Protestant dominant creeds most influential at that time. When the Treaty was signed it was only a few decades after an end to institutional exclusion of Catholics in Britain. I think he had that in mind – not multifaith situation.
I don’t think the signatories thinking about religion at the Treaty had in mind making Christianity (as Pope Benedict terms it)one booth at the fairground of religions.
At the end of the Gospel of Matthew Jesus tells his disciples to go out to the nations and baptise. It is cultures and nations, not individuals that the Lord had in mind.
I think the Bishops should have placed Christianity dominant and centre as the heart of ethical formation for New Zealand and fought for that.
What we have now is ‘a voice’ among others. We have to start at the beginning again. There is no Christian fallback position. All complaints now will be about having ‘a voice’. Pathetic. I’m sure any complaining Bishops ‘without a voice’ will be patronised and given their column in the paper. They lost the war completely without a whimper (I think they were having cups of tea with the secularists while Tamaki’s crusaders were at the ramparts considered a sad bunch of fundamentalists). But of course any enlightened modern Christian knows that they are not fundamentalists and of course everyone’s point of view should not be dominated by the Christian perspective. They are instead a peaceful bunch having moved on to the Gospel of Multifaith, because Jesus loves everybody just as they are. Baptism of Nations? Did Jesus really say that, the historical Jesus that is, you know the real one, not the one with all the lines in the Bible.
Don’t we believe that Christianity is best for society? If not that is a major problem in terms of what we think Christianity is. We needed to be recognised as ‘The Voice’.
Now the fruits of that outcome are evident in Clark’s Government. Social reorganisation and a new understanding of family which is the undoing of so much stability and good. Secularism wins the day.
Just like Britain – the C of E stood back and held the front door open while the secularists deconstructed everything Christian.
We are now in the same position.
The Church has poured so much of herself into the public sphere in terms of service and the common good.
True, but the higher wisdom of modern faith bearers consider tolerance to be a higher virtue than charity in truth and so want to sack themselves to prove it.
Sounds like the Gospel according to John Rawls, rather than the Gospel of Matthew.
Apparently this article was an example of the annoyingly more and more common media sensationalism. Check this letter to the editor by Joris from the HRC…
Oh, and bring on the census next year where hopefully Christianity (as a blanket group) will be below 50%.
And, how could there ever be religious freedom without a secular state? It seems all but impossible.
I know that many cultures would think we’re crazy trying to separate spiritual beliefs from political systems and everyday social issues. The Church’s input is necessary in politics and public life. If the Pope hadn’t got involved in political matters more than a few international situations may have turned out quite differently (for the worse).
Well, where to start? Firstly, even I can think of some cultures where they would think we’re crazy trying to separate spiritual beliefs from political systems – Saudi Arabia, for example. Try having freedom of religion there, I dare you!
And the Pope getting involved in International situations? …what, just like he did in WWII – yeah right, like that was really useful.
And as for the Church’s input being necessary, what complete and utter hogwash. Why is it necessary for a bunch of folk who believe in the supernatural to try and influence the political culture of a society unless it ultimately wants to end up in a theocracy? That’s just crazy talk.
I mean, come on, can’t you think of something better to fill your blog than this tripe?
KA
Why is it necessary for a bunch of folk who believe in the supernatural to try and influence the political culture of a society unless it ultimately wants to end up in a theocracy? That’s just crazy talk.
Reason alone is man’s mind reduced to the vanity of the moment – in a seemingly controllable situation. Reduced at times absurdly to the power of a particular personality or the latest populist position on just about everything.
Religion without reason crushes man into a slave of the deity, or notion of the divine without reference to the reality of life.
Religion and reason together, which provided the freedoms you think were devised by man alone was the immanent expression of the divine which served humanity unselfishly because of the humanity of Christ. Where did literacy for general populations come from? Where did hospitals come from? etc etc.
If you don’t like the blog find another.
And as for the Church’s input being necessary, what complete and utter hogwash.
Saudi Arabia agree with you, and are happy to encourage you to get rid of it…they have the perfect replacement to make post Christian atheism feel just a little more zealous about the Almighty. Don’t worry you won’t feel a thing.
Why is it necessary for a bunch of folk who believe in the supernatural to try and influence the political culture of a society unless it ultimately wants to end up in a theocracy? That’s just crazy talk.
No, not looking for a theocracy. Just interested in saving souls.
At the least, to put it in secular terms, no different than the many other groups wanting to influence society for their own purposes. Many of those influences are arguably quite destructive at a personal level and cultural level, so it is important to speak up and speak out.
Perhaps you would at least agree with Ronald Reagan? He said:
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
I find it amazing that you worry so much about what the Pope might say, knowing you’ll just dismiss his words or mock them, and less about what the government is doing and is capable of doing. A government that would try to control what people are permitted to think would ultimately be a very dangerous government.
PS: Re international relations. Yes, the Pope and WWII. Not your propagandized version though. And the Pope and Poland and the fall of communism there, especially from 1979.
Hi Tristram Shandy
Thanks for the mention of Rex Adhar.
I understand that he is an Otago Law Professor.
What else can you tell us about him?
Where do you access his books?
Hi Benedicta,
Rex Ahdar was someone I came across when I was thinking of doing my Masters on the separation of church and state in New Zealand. He is a legal academic focussed on rights and freedoms. I think that he was a non-denominational Christian and has recently converted to Catholicism.
I accessed his books in the law library up here at Auckland Uni, but I see that a couple of his books are available in the city library. So perhaps that is the first port of call. But if you have access to a uni (law) library that should be a better bet. I especially recommend his 2005 book “Religious freedom in a liberal state”. Here’s the its short blurb:
To what extent should states accommodate religious liberty claims? Can the pluralist state be neutral between religions and secularism? This book explores contemporary legal controversies regarding the protection of religious liberty from a theoretical and comparative perspective, looking at issues such as family and parenting, medical treatment, education, employment, religious group autonomy, and freedom of expression.
I can’t fully remember the book’s argument but I think that essentially it ran that a soft form of established church (he used the CofE in the UK as an example) was in his view better than a secular state. He mentions the interesting fact that prominent Jewish and Muslim leaders in the UK support the CofE rather than a secular state as at least the CofE brings the supernatural and God into the public concsiousness.
One of his arguments is that there is no “neutral” world view, so the state will always be biased towards one view, whether that view is there is a God or there is no God.
He also has plenty to say about the knots the US gets in with its particular view of the separation of church and state and how the US constitution doesn’t (or shouldn’t be interpretated to) mean that there is no place for God in the public sphere.
Anyway, I thoroughly recommend him if you’re interested – you’ll get a much better argument from the horse’s mouth!
TS
What a strange thing to say.
Why would you hope for the demise of another religious grouping?
Such a sentiment just proves Rex Ahdar point that ’secularism doesn’t provide a neutral playing ground for all religions to flourish in the intellectual market place since secularism is itself one of the competing ideologies’ – see comment #1
Former RC,
That point has nothing to do with secular states, that’s just my personal thoughts. The connection you made makes no sense.
And since when is a goal of secularism to provide an environment where all religions flourish? That’s taking the concept and applying your own wishes on it. We should only talk about secularism in terms of a state (or large enough group I guess) – so a secular state is just one that doesn’t support any one particular religion and provides freedom of religion and freedom from religion. That’s it. Whether religions flourish or not is an entirely separate matter.
The problem of course is that there is inherent tension between secular states and religions because nearly all religions believe their way to be the only way to the good life and therefore want/require/demand influence through the state. This is what secularism prevents, and as history has shown us and present day Iran shows us, theocracies suck.
Hear, hear KA!
Another point along these lines is if any religion wants influence on public opinion and political decision making, then they must back up their claims. They must provide evidence for the basis of their claims.
No group should be allowed to have influence in these areas when the foundation of their views are particular interpretations of ancient texts and delusional notions of human conduits for supernatural beings. They should definitely be allowed to try and have influence, but they should be thoroughly critiqued and if found wanting, dismissed.
Just like I would be if I went around the country saying “law X should be changed because my god Y says it should.”
just as when evils prevails when good people remain silent then deparavity ensures when the voices of moral people are ignored.
When people cry separation of God/church and state they are really tryng to remove moral judgements altogether, which means a moral vacum where anything goes and likely will.
2000 years of Christian influence is our foundational heritage that ony a fool (or a fish) would not recognise.
It is rather futile to “provide evidence for the basis of their claims” when opponents have already assumed that “the foundation of their views are…delusional notions of human conduits for supernatural beings”. Any evidence is a priori based upon “delusions”.
Today’s Gospel reading is quite fitting: Matthew 12: 38-42. Jesus was asked for a sign or proof and said essentially “why bother? you have already made up your mind against me.” Kind of like the people asking for a sign right after the feeding of the five thousand. Short memories…
Thanks Tristram
I’ll seek his books out.
The difficulty with the UK situation where CoE is in fact a state supported creed but is extremely separate in influence and muddled in its viewpoint which can only be called progressive at least at the high representative end.
then they must back up their claims
Really Fishe? Does society back up its claims that unborn babies are not human beings – which cannot be scientifically backed up. Or does it just dismiss the inconvenient science for its own determined belief in the god of ‘rights’. Rights without obligations. No small matter just heaps of dead babies year in and year out.
Without the God of faith and reason – what emerges are death cultures.
Benedicta,
Yes claims must be backed up. That doesn’t automatically mean scientific studies but it does mean that there needs to be transparency.
Yes there are things such as abortion that rest ultimately on ethical/moral viewpoints, but these can be debated without falling back on the supernatural. It is when a person comes to the table with supernatural things behind their arguments that they must back these up before getting any credibility.
It should be obvious how these supernatural things are generally just masks for an individual’s own fears/desires/prejudices/etc…
“Without the God of faith and reason – what emerges are death cultures.”
Do you write speeches for Sarah Palin?
I don’t think that categorical and unsupported statement adds anything to the debate, Fishe. You were doing quite well up till then.
I could quote you any number of anti-religion statements that are ‘just masks for an individual’s own fears/desires/prejudices/etc’ – but if we start going there, we’ll lose the point of the whole thread.
I take your point that we can have a debate in the public arena about anything you wish. But a fundamental belief in, say, radical feminism, is going to colour the views a person brings to the debate.
It is important to know these preconceived ideas. People who have preconceived ideas should be open about them. But they shouldn’t be excluded from the debate because other people disagree with them.
We Catholic Christians base our faith on personal experience, reason and the witness of countless people through the last 5,500 years. You chose to reject that, as is your right. You claim our personal experiences are delusional, and we certainly can’t prove that they’re not, short of some kind of direct brain to brain transfer.
JP,
That statement is just my personal opinion – it seems from what I’ve seen so far to be fairly accurate for many people. But yeah, you’re right, people use lots of things like this, including things like ‘being an atheist’ as a mask to hate on religious people for example. Religion as a mask though is a particularly solid example.
But yeah, that is off topic a bit.
You’re right, preconceived ideas should be brought to the forefront as much as possible – things should be more transparent. And yep, people shouldn’t be excluded from the debate just because others think they have crazy ideas.
But like I’ve been saying, these motives/foundations should be critiqued. So next time churches put out a public opinion or try and influence policy they should prefix it with something like “we’re basing these opinions on what we think a supernatural being called God is telling us we should do (but that’s about as far as we can back that up sorry).”
Then others would ask, “so, uhm, got any proof of this God thing?” And then they go off into some theological argument, and we all here know I’m sure these don’t make sense to those who don’t believe in the first instance.
Wouldn’t it just be better for groups to say something like “we oppose abortions because we believe it isn’t justified killing – the life of the unborn baby outweighs the autonomy of the mother” (or similar). There’s no need to appeal to the supernatural, just cut to the ethics.
Or likewise, “we oppose gay marriage because gays make us feel uncomfortable and we don’t want to encourage homosexual behaviour in our society.”
For most other issues there’s probably actual solid evidence to appeal to.
Actually, Fishe, I think you’ll find the Catholic Church does usually appeal to reason in its public statements. And I think it is fairly clear to most people that a statement from, say, the Catholic Bishops Conference is based on a particular set of preconceived ideas.
But feel free to share with Brian Tamaki.
Fishe, try this one, for example: http://catholic.org.nz/statements/0008_homosexual.php
Or this one, on contraception and abortion: http://catholic.org.nz/statements/0105_givinglife.php
There’s a word that springs to mind, rationalisation. Catholics are great at it.
I’m trying to get at the nitty gritty low level below all the theologobabble.
But granted, it’s a far better thing, this psuedo-thought, than the evangelical Destiny style.
Rational? Or rationalisation? Hmmm.
Of course, acknowledging ‘psuedo-thought’ is a far better thing than the kind of ill-informed hatred that passes for atheist critique of the church on many sites.
DV,
When people cry separation of God/church and state they are really tryng to remove moral judgements altogether, which means a moral vacum where anything goes and likely will.
More absolute hogwash. Morals are not predicated upon any religion, whether you believe they are or not. When are you going to get that into your head? Unless, of course, you’re only a moral person because you’ve got religion – is that what you’re saying?
KA
Hi JP and Fishe
Sarah Palin’s speeches…I find them they are rather refreshing and I wish her the best. She is a Baptised Catholic though in the evangelical fold at the moment. I find lots of Catholics, some non practicing doing the most interesting things. Rather like culture warriors – crusaders of old. Great.
Yes there are things such as abortion that rest ultimately on ethical/moral viewpoints, but these can be debated without falling back on the supernatural.
The reason that I mentioned abortion is that it requires no falling back on the supernatural as you put it.
Scientific proof doesn’t bring about agreement on the facts because people don’t make decisions on facts but on what they perceive to be good, and especially good for them.
So as you say this is the moral argument.
Why you need the Catholic True faith, which gives the fullest witness to the revelation of God in Christ, is that through Christ and the Judeo Christian tradition which has been faithfully held in the Catholic Church without interruption is found the most solid witness to what is The Good.
What is good is an enduring truth for all men for all time. It is not subject to cultural radical reinterpretation but is open by reason to a deepening understanding of how things are. This opens us more fully to the Truth but does not deny the good we know.
Without this true understanding of God, human existance is reviewable by means of government policy. At the fundemental level of human existance this is crazy.
Benedicta, I like a lot of what you’ve said on this thread, but, two things — Mr Tamaki, by what apostolic authority is he a bishop? And Sarah Palin, — I believe her use of Christianity is utterly political and rather cynical, do you really like her, or is it mainly that she doesnt like the same people you don’t like?
Hi JJS
Agreed Bishop Tamaki does not have apostolic authority. Neither does the Archbishop of Canterbury. I only called him Bishop Tamaki as that is what he is designated by his followers. Methodists also have Bishops. These all seem the same. But I was just calling him what he proposes himself to be, which is in effect the same for CoE.
Sarah Palin – you may be right. But I am not emeshed in USA politics. But I like her stand on family and so on. I like her as a person, from what I have seen. She is strong and isn’t falling down underfire. I like that. I like her conservative values, which I think are important. In the public sphere I think we really need to rebuild the family. This doesn’t need to negate the reality of other human realities and experiences but we need to build society and on firm foundations from one generation to the next. This means mothers, fathers and babies. I happen to think they all belong together as a unique family unit. We have lost this sense in several directions.
Far too early to judge Sarah Palin and I certainly am not going to judge her Christianity. What she needs to do in the public sphere is common to many fair minded people, Christian and otherwise.
In effect, in politics, the centre where Christianity is articulated is not the supernatural understanding of God, but the common human dignity of the individual and the common good of society. This is the best freedom base for everyone.
In effect, in politics, the centre where Christianity is articulated is not the supernatural understanding of God, but the common human dignity of the individual and the common good of society. This is the best freedom base for everyone.
If this was true, I’m sure fishe and I wouldn’t have a problem. The sad fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin is not this sort of Christian – she is the worst sort – the fundamentalist end-of-days type who would like no better than for the rapture to happen tomorrow and take you all up. I dread to think what may happen if the US ever elects her to the ultimate authority. All I can say is that I’m glad I’m as far away from there as possible
KA
Benedicta, yes I agree that Sarah Palin affirms the value of the traditional family in an environment where some politicians are embarrassed to even talk about it. However I believe some unChristian approaches to economics etc are quietly brought along for the ride.
I agree entirely!
P.S — (just to be fair) The Archbishop of Canterbury would argue that there was no break in apostolic succession when the CoE split from Rome (there was no replacement of ordained clergy)
KA 23
Religion gives us a moral compass that has stood the test of time. What I am trying to get you to understand is that if you marginalise those moral people who happen to be religious then there isnt much real objective opinion left and this creates a moral vacum.
JJS
The Archbishop of Canterbury would argue that there was no break in apostolic succession when the CoE split from Rome (there was no replacement of ordained clergy)
He can argue all he likes, the fact of the matter is that they only continued to LOOK like Roman clergy because of the revolts by the people i.e. Pilgrimage of Grace. Otherwise they would have followed more closely Calvin. Latimer’s style would have had them like Methodists and Baptists.
The reason the Anglican’s have no Apostolic succession is because the line was broken from Bishop to Bishop. You need a Bishop with recognised Orders to ordain another Bishop. When Elizabeth came to the throne no Catholic Bishop from Mary’s reign would ordain Elizabeth a Bishop. They all rotted in jail. Elizabeth has to pronounce her own Bishop to ordain. Therefore he had no Apostolic Orders. Had they broken with Rome but remained with true Apostolic Orders maybe the relationship would be more like the Catholic and Orthodox Churches – Orthodox have valid Orders and therefore Sacraments but don’t recognise the authority of the Pope – which is what essentially makes one a Catholic.
However I believe some unChristian approaches to economics etc are quietly brought along for the ride
If this was true, I’m sure fishe and I wouldn’t have a problem. The sad fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin is not this sort of Christian – she is the worst sort – the fundamentalist end-of-days type who would like no better than for the rapture to happen tomorrow and take you all up.
I think a Christian economics has yet to emerge.
The fundamentalist end-of-days type? Well we are all in that boat KA. We have exclusive beliefs which are fundamentally true and we believe in the end of days. Rapture? Well now they mess that one up as Jesus doesn’t come three times. However, I don’t think you need to get all het up. Rapture Christians might like to watch the signs of the times, but they won’t inaugurate the end of days. The scriptures clearly tell them numerous times to ‘watch’.
Ahmidinejad on the other hand has a scripture which tells him to ‘fight the Jews’ till Judgement Day, which rather encourages him to keep up the fight and not go for Peace. Peace puts the breaks on the end of days.
Getting all het up over fundamentalism is nonsense.
It is entirely true – the Catholic Church teaches that the human arena of the world is that common humanity which needs to be free. It holds the key to human freedom – dignity of each person in the light of Christ. Each one is a brother, friend and neighbour.
At the political level it is these things that matter. It is at this level that the Church wants to inform politics – the dignity of man and the common good. She has laid many foundations in health and education. Faith is proposed not imposed. Freedom of religion (or non religion) is fine as long as the common good and human dignity are first served. This is the biggest challenge we have in some countries from Islam and in others also atheism. If these flourish we lose freedom and the good we do have. In the case of Islam there is no instance in history, without war, of regaining that freedom, and then there were more losses than gains.
The fact is you have to have a common vision. I don’t think that any genuine Christian of any creed would not be able to unite with others on these things that matter most to daily life. Defence of life, marriage, education, health. Economics we can leave to the economists. What the Church wants is communities of life, unity and participation in society at all levels. What we have is welfare dependance and family breakdown.
Economics is all pervasive and can’t be ignored in working for the very things you talk about. Luckily the Catholic Church has never ignored it.
JJS
There is no Christian economics. I think Wendell Berry had some thoughts on this. I would think it rather too much to insist on a Christian economics! Informing the debate would be constructive. We can leave economics to the economists if they are critiqued by the understanding of the human person and the common good; the Christian knowledge of this, which is the tradition of Western civilisation and radically different to others.
There are no utopias afterall.
“Sarah Palin’s speeches…I find them they are rather refreshing and I wish her the best”
You what now? She’s more of an idiot than Bush. Just because she has a few pro-Catholic policies doesn’t mean she should be President. Surely you realise this.
fishe,
It seems that there is no such realization – sadly.
KA
KA & fishe.
Perhaps Sarah Palin should not be president – but check out her poll ratings in the US.
In any event, she could hardly be any worse than the bozo that is the US president at the moment.
Dubya was not that bad a president – I think Jimmy Carter has the honour of being the worst US president in living memory.
Don
I know what you’re saying, but a choice of one bozo over another is not a choice – it’s a nightmare!
KA
KA