Live Religious Stupidity On TV!

[mundens]

Classic example of religious stupidty on television this evening. A member of the Exclusive Brethren church said that he, and other members of the church didn't vote, and that the reason for this was that government came from their god.

But this was in the context of them admitting they are responsible for the anonymous leaflet drop encouraging people to vote National. He said they were doing this because they didn't like what was happening in New Zealand.

The leaflet drop was specifically designed to convince people to vote against the incumbent government. In other words, they were trying to change the current government. The government he had just said came from his god. Thus, he is acting against his god by attempting to change that government.

Actually, you could tell even he was beginning to realize the stupidity of what he'd just said as he reached the end of it!

I'm not surprised, but I am amused, at the hypocrisy of effectively saying "We won't vote, but we'll try and get you to vote differently!"

Surely if they were really trying to follow their own teachings they should be trying to convince more people not to vote at all? That way their god would be allowed to choose the government with less interference from humans! :)

Comments

[yeldarb-smaillw.livejournal.com]

Actually appearing on TV goes against the convention of their religion's denial of TV, radio and similar media in their lives! But then the spokesperson this evening attempted to differentiate themselves as being a group of "like minded businessmen, fundamentalist christians who have the legal right to exercise freedom of expression" and it just so happens that they are also all members of the Exclusive Brethren.

I find the situation very interesting. Religion has finally engaged itself fully in NZ politics. We see Destiny NZ, United Future and now this independent backing of a major opposition party's campaign.

I personally don't have a problem with it. After all, the unions back Labour strongly and (unfairly) agitate and tell their members who they should vote for.

This year's result promises to be very interesting ...

[cha0sslave.livejournal.com]

Yea I was going to say that too. They get all "EEEEviiiillll" about radio and such. I don't see how any party benefits them but then again I don't take mch notice of any religious nutter, not even catholics and christians.

I should start a pagan party...

[jaadfan.livejournal.com]

....but the Nordic Heathen org that I'm on the Board of Directors for in the USA filed for a tax status that meant we can't lobby in the political arena there.

It'd be pure hypocracy to enter politics anywhere else for that reason.

Odin for president!

Thor for Minister of Defense

Tyr for Justice (no surprises there)

Re: I should start a pagan party...

[mundens.livejournal.com]

Loki as head of the SIS?

Re: I should start a pagan party...

[jaadfan.livejournal.com]

and comissioner for transgender affairs!

[laputain.livejournal.com]

I personally don't have a problem with it. After all, the unions back Labour strongly and (unfairly) agitate

If you consider a workers' union an organisation in the same league as a bunch of religious nutters, then that itself is an admission of political prejudice.

Of course, this is an admission of political prejudice of my own, but I'm actually happy to be on the side of workers.

[yeldarb-smaillw.livejournal.com]

As a hard worker I believe in workers' rights too!

But I have never joined a Union because I believe in being an individual, with freedom to make my own choices. I make my own decisions and negotiate on that basis.

This doesn't mean that Unions don't serve a useful purpose. I agree that they do. They give a voice to people who aren't necessarily able to advocate strongly for their own rights, and they provide a support nwtwork, which is a good thing.

But Unions overstep the mark when they openly publish politically motivated literature that tell people to vote in a certain way. For example, the PSA was advocating for its members to vote for Labour recently. This is blantantly wrong.

The PSA union represents public servants who are required to be politically neutral, a rule that is strictly enforced to avoid conflicts of interest.

Maybe I am politically prejudiced. But I'm not religious!

I think the original intent of my comment was to illustrate that it is important for the opposition parties to have strong backers if the incumbent governing parties enjoy the support of the unions. More like a counterweight. We need a balance.

What I find most interesting about the nature of these previously unsepected supporters - the Exclusive Brethren in this instance - is the fact that a normally non-voting, apolitical anonymous religious sect suddenly reveals a faction amongst themselves that has been polarised to take some independent action with the stated intent to change the government.

I'm thinking that the recent social agenda of the incumbent government has provoked a backlash from several religious groups against "moral decline".

We've never seen groups like Destiny NZ march on Parliament or the current leaflet campaign of the Brethren in our country before.

Times are surely changing.

[jaadfan.livejournal.com]

the concept of political neutrality extends only to your professional life though: as a private citizen, you're allowed to hold whatever view you like.

I've noticed though that churches sometimes suggest out loud that (say, in the wake of the Prostitution reforms and Civil Union legeslation) that they'd instruct their congregations to vote against politicians who'd voted for those Bills.

The best thing about having lots of Christian political parties - is that they split their vote and stay collectively below the radar - where religion belongs.

I don't want them legeslating their morality on my country.

[jaadfan.livejournal.com]

Hmm the 'moral decline' thing is interesting too:

I'm inclined to think in terms of extending human rights to more corners of society.

Moral decline seems to be the catch cry of those that 'have' against those they deem don't deserve to 'have'.

I guess this is part of belonging to an alternate worldview (ie a pagan, in my case) that I tend to steer away from the Christian voices in the community - I question them and often find myself rejecting them.

[lossenkemen.livejournal.com]

I'd say they haven't done National any favours at all, either. I think a lot of people who might have been thinking of voting National would be turned off by the admitted association with the Exclusive Brethren. It could be something like, "If that bunch of backward thinking, religious fundamentalist nutters back National, I'll vote for someone else."

I dunno. Maybe it's just me who'd be inclined to such contrariness.

[mcmlxxviii.livejournal.com]

I'm inclined to think that they're secretly backing the Labour party. After all, what better way to turn people away from National than them openly meeting with, and being supported by, a bunch of wacko cultists like the Brethren.

It's little wonder that Labour is now polling 9 points ahead.

[holding-pattern.livejournal.com]

Yep, it seemed quite silly. I do think there's a difference between an anonymous (albeit only briefly) campaign and open support, so tis not exactly the same as the unions supporting Labour.

[jaadfan.livejournal.com]

having spent a lot of time in the Council of Trade Unions board room of late (setting up a Toastmasters club for members there), at their core, most unionists seem to really care about the welfare of others, and things like social justice and responsibility.

I've learned a lot of respect for these folk who stick their necks out for others.

And to think I grew up in a staunch National voting house!

[adrexia.livejournal.com]

They sounds like monarchists

[yeldarb-smaillw.livejournal.com]

It could be a cunning deception of behalf of McGillicuddy Serious! Or ACT ...