The influence of Christianity in New Zealand

The other day there was an article in the North Shore times titled "Bible classes get the bash." At the heart of it were non-Christian parents (led by Peter Harrison), moaning and grumbling about "existing religious instruction being too exclusive" and how a Bible Class "does not reflect the multi-cultural profile of our country." http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/north-shore-times/6780068/Bible-classes-get-a-bash
Mr. Harrison referred to the Bible as "some archaic document" and having a class "covering common values like tolerance, love and integrity." It seems like a class Mr Harrison would benefit immensely from as he displays none of those values in his interview. Nor does he realise how much of an impact Christianity has influenced New Zealand or how his ethics class is doomed to fail.

As an English Colony, New Zealand derived a lot of its law, lifestyle and traditions from Britain and British Culture. Peter Hitchens summarised it perfectly when he said "our laws, customs, traditions, language, music, architecture, diet, everything you care to name, these are all based upon Christianity." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig-thN-xxqI (He says this from 20.16-20.24). Mr Harrison has debated himself into a corner immediately by dismissing the Bible as some unnecessary obsolete text. So much of New Zealand's law, ethics and culture have Christian foundations. One of the things that is so sad to see from Mr Harrison is just how educated he is attempting to make himself appear, when he brings forth nothing more than a narrow minded, ignorant attitude about just how significant Christianity is in the foundations of our laws. "Thou shall not murder;" "Thou shall not steal;" "Love your neighbour as yourself;" "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." (Exodus 20:13, Exodus 20:15, Mark 12:31, Luke 6:31) These two moral laws and two guidelines are four of the many moral codes taken directly from Christianity and still very much as relevant in today's society as they were when written.

Mr Harrison's further claims that religious indoctrination "is too exclusive" and multiculturalism should come first. In that, he should be inspired by the occasion Jesus' invited the children to be with him, when his disciples were attempting to shoo them away. Mr. Harrison and the Non-Christian parents are the ones who are making these classes exclusive; so they ought to stop blaming everyone else for their own actions and start holding themselves accountable for this exclusivity. A true Christian church should never turn anyone away from attending their weekly services. They know it is imperative to stay true to 1 Peter 4:9 "Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling." Also 1 Thessalonians 5:15 "Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else." These two verses affirm, that above all things, living harmoniously and in peace with our neighbours is one of the greatest guidelines to being at peace with others. This Christian attitude is evident in today's society with social acceptance becoming more common with groups which were previously discriminated against.

So what is Mr. Harrison's alternative to this all? An Ethics Education class, similar to the one in the New South Wales Primary Schools; it is now being taught to over 3500 students. An inevitable problem with this alternative is simple; Mr Harrison should realise now how unlikely this ethics class is to give lasting values to young children. . "Why should I do that?" "That ain't no use" are two popular remarks teenagers enjoy making . Anything which they take in from these Ethics classes are likely to be tossed out as they walk through the teenager door. If Mr. Harrison wants rational proof of this (like he seems to want, based on his various blogs and internet posts) he need only go down to Browns Bay beach on a Friday night and witness for himself youth who don't respect the law and lack morals and is contrary to a devoted Christian teenager who hold the Christian moral code close to their hearts. This is not to say Christian teenagers won't be rebellious and misbehave. They do believe though, that there shall come a time when they will be held accountable and have to give an account of why they acted unlawfully and immorally. In turn, the troubled youth down at Browns Bay live without care for anyone or anything but themselves. The ethics Education is nothing but a cheap quick fix gimmick a young student will have difficulty learning and be quick to dispose when they begin going through puberty.

Peter Harrison is no idiot. He merely lacks an understanding of the impact and influence of Christianity in our laws and culture. His alternative Ethics class won't make the lasting impression he wants it to. Maybe now, he will hopefully see that Christianity has had a huge influence on Kiwi culture. Bigger than he's probably ready to admit.

It's not passion, it's bad sportsmanship

Fifty years ago there was a silence or polite applause from the home fans when an away team scored. Fans and followers of that team were not afraid to show their enthusiasm and it was all in the spirit of the game. As young kids, we are always told by our parents to be humble winners and gracious losers and always upholding ourselves by giving our best and respecting the opposition. Why is it then that grown ups give their kids such valuable advice, yet run off to their favorite sport and boo the opposition? That's not pride for your side, or passionately supporting your team; its bad sportsmanship.

On April 16, 2012, in the FA Cup Semi Final between Tottenham and Chelsea, the crowd was asked to observe a moment of silence to mark the "23rd anniversary where 96 fans lost their lives." It was a short lived moment as a small group of Chelsea fans childishly started booing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/9206300/Hillsborough-anniversary-Chelsea-embarrassed-as-fans-ruin-minutes-silence-at-Wembley.html
Liverpool's' fans behavior is even more abject. A fan wearing a Manchester United jersey comes to watch a Liverpool training session, only to be met with a reception of boos and jeers from onlooking Liverpool fans. A curious onlooker has every right to lambaste this puerile behavior. If respect cannot even be shown to a fan of another club, there's no denying it just gets worse the further one looks into soccer,* with players regularly bullying the referee and swearing at him, lauded on by their immature fans.

Don't assume this is a one off occurrence, or restricted to soccer* either. The Southern Hemisphere's premiere Rugby showpiece, the Tri-Nations is regularly subjected to sporting lowlifes who take every occasion the opposition has an opportunity to score point to boo the opposition kicker. An example is attached below. Listen at 11.50-12.00 just how loud these jeering noises are. Kids go to these games to watch their heroes play, only to see people around them pathetically chanting at the visiting teams' kicker. Retired Springbok Lock Victor Matfield has rather flatly dismissed home crowds booing as nothing more than "showing their passion" for their team. Eden Park tried and failed by asking the audience over the loud speakers to remain quiet while both kickers attempted shots, with little success. Passion for supporting your team comes from cheering them on when they're on the offense and praising them when they get the better of the opponent in defensive situations. Booing an opposition kicker when he shoots at goal and doing likewise when the referee makes a decision in favor of the visiting side is reminiscent to a child having a tantrum when they don't get the toy they wanted at the store.

Next time you're at a sporting venue and see a grown man or woman booing or jeering, ask them why they're doing it? Ask them just what it is that makes them arrogant enough to make such a low blow move? If they're audacious enough to give you an answer to each question, ask them how their actions are any different from a school student disrespectfully talking back to a teacher? Truth is that both the fan and the school student are rude, cynical, incredibly conniving, asinine and above all completely obstinate towards it all. Booing the opposition should have no place in any sport of any kind. Any fan that disagrees ought to put a diaper on.




*Soccer is used instead of Football so American and Canadian readers don't get confused.

The Poison Apple?

Apple has led the way in innovation, producing revolutionary products such as the i-Pod (released in 2001), the I-Phone (released in 2007), and more recently the i-Pad (released in 2010). Millions of units of each product have been sold and Apple has largely received positive reviews for ingeniously identifying, and satisfying, consumer demand for a product that ensures that a specific facet of people's life is better. easier, more enjoyable. In the process, the slick Apple marketing machine has made certain that the winsome products are ones which others must see you with. Underneath a blanket of 'wholesome-as-apple-pie' smiles though, there lies a supercilious attitude withiin Apple's senior management. It is a foolhardy attitude that their products are so superior, that any fault which these products (particularly the I-Phone) produces is to blamed on the customer, not the producer. Be wary of trying to get your 'i-item' repaired. The biggest adjustment will be to your bank balance.

An I-phone owner who used to jokingly refer to her mobile as 'god-in-a-rectangle' became dissatisfied with her I-phone when she noticed that her I-Phone "Home button" was beginning to respond erratically. It began to take four or five clicks to return to the home screen. "I went to the Apple Store at my local mall and told them about the problem. The store clerk said he could send it back to the supplier who could replace it for me. The catch 22 was I would have to pay $400 if I wanted to choose this option." As a cheaper alternative, this customer was advised to take the I-phone to an electronics repair shop, which she did, hoping that a change of stores would bring about a better response. It was to no avail. "The store said it would cost $45 just to send my I-Phone off to get repaired. On top of that were the actual repair costs themselves, which the shop owner estimated would cost anywhere from $60-$180. This, in effect, could be added to the original price of the phone. I realised I was being asked to pay about $100 to repair a relatively new phone." Outraged, and unconvinced the customer quipped, "I shouldn't have to be paying to fix a product which Apple knew was going to endure a lot of wear and tear." Don't assume in today's consumer marketing era Apple is going to show this customer (or the thousands of other customers who had endured similar technical faults with their I-Phones) any sort of sympathy.

Mass product recalls have never been uncommon and are frequently done if enough customers compain. Toddler tool made by Little Tykes had a mass recall "because of choking concerns." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44698187/ns/business-consumer_news/t/big-recall-little-tikes-play-tool-sets/#.T4lR_FGO13U
Toyota had flushed pink with embarrassment in 2008 and recalled 2.3 million of its cars that were at risk of randomly accelerating unmanned. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/runaway-toyotas-problem-persists-recall/story?id=9618735#.T4lXYFGO13U
Apple's record for product recalls is far from impressive. It's pathetic at best. Thousands of customers, in vain, complained about the defective 1st generation i-Pod nano which completely burnt out and ceased to function properly, only to be told that they could not be reimbursed. It took five years before did Apple. eventually, admit there was the chance the Nanos could "overheat and possibly even catch on fire." But in their typical smug, supercilious fashion Apple were not willing to replace all of the first generation Nanos, only "those whose serial numbers match the units with defective batteries."

Apple (and Steve Jobs) honed a reputation for providing products that were focussed on the consumer. Is Apple really that consumer focused? No. Their products are not built to last and the Board of Directors are well aware of that. A short term push to increase profits and boost fat pay packages far exceeds any concerns about technical faults that a consumer might encounter. It's about time these frustrated I-Phone users started writing formal complaint letters to Apple. Abandoning consumption of their products won't persuade the Big Apples of Apple to change. I-Phones must be built to last because in today's technology driven age, the wear and tear of these products will be high, and customers have to trust the mobile phone purchase they have made is a good investment, not one where they have to dump and jump (to another brand) after the phone starts acting up after a measly 24 months of use. If you are still unconvinced this is just a rarity, have a skim read through the 23 pages of complaints about the same Home button problem on the Apple website. (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3022587?start=0&tstart=0)

Apple has some serious problems to address. It is only when the crown gets knocked off their head will they begin to realize, ultimately their customers are the people they should be listening to more than anything else in the orchard. And, rather than building cheap, crummy products, they should make efforts to invest in producing higher-quality, 'built to last' "i" products. Don't protest against them silently, let your voice be heard. Sooner or later, in doing this, the poisoned Apple will be discovered.

Don’t listen to Sue Bradford, listen to your parenting intuition

Sue Bradford has always had a reputation for being controversial. A former back-bencher politician, she successfully managed to pass three proposed bills into law. One, which is totally valid, is making the minimum wage equal for 16 and 17 year old students and adults alike (that a youth’s ability to scan items or pack shelves should be rewarded with inferior remuneration compared to someone 10-30 years their senior, is baffling). Her second bill, that prison mothers be given further entitlements to keep their babies longer, is open to debate. One cannot, however, mention Sue Bradford, without bringing into account an incredibly unpopular third bill that she put through parliament. The Crimes Amendment Act 2007 was put through in 2007, removing a parent’s right to use reasonable force as a way of disciplining their child. One big question must be addressed about such a law. Why should we even listen to Sue Bradford?

Listening tentatively to a politician and taking their word for it on situations has rarely proven fruitful or beneficial. John Key promised not to raise GST levels, only to later backtrack on it, providing weak-kneed excuses. Julia Gillard adamantly said no carbon tax would be put on sources of energy Australians would be unable to function properly without, only to sneakily push it through by blaming Australians for lack of environmental concern. If one is unable to trust a Prime Minister, why trust anyone sharing a political bedroom with them?

Mrs Bradford, to be frank, is a lying, vainglorious, undemocratic sensationalist woman. It is to the benefit of the New Zealand people that she no longer serves in parliament. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XFaxThapdQ&feature=player_embedded

Her first address as to why the Bill should be passed, asserts that children are entitled to their own rights. Children do have rights, the right to be loved and cared for and brought up in a household where the parent(s) have provided for them a stable home so they are able to flourish through their schooling. Children, right up until their mid-teen years, are still immature with their decision making and if an incessant negligence for the rules arises, no law should prevent a parent using reasonable force to correct their children. Mrs Bradford, though, thinks otherwise. "While on the surface it might appear like a simple smack or a simple hit - what we don't know is what else is happening in that family either with that child, or other children, or the mother or some other family member.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4061/Bradford-says-anti-smacking-law-working-well She has fed an intrigued New Zealand media lies that any parent who disagrees with her warped ideology is some deluded, neurotic person who simply doesn’t cut the mustard. 99.9% of parents want their children to be the best they can be, and are willing to make sacrifices for them to achieve that. Talking to the child, giving them a time out or screaming at them just doesn’t work at times. It must be a parent’s right to know that if a smack prevents their child from being naughty, then a smack ought to be administered.

From day one the Bradfordtism Section 59 Amendment proposal was met with an outcry of public disapproval against the adjustments. A staggering 85% of people were against the law when it was passed and that number remained largely unchanged when an Anti-Smacking referendum was launched in 2009. A multitude of opinions compiled by the New Zealand Herald supports these views. One respondent Sean says “We vote for you to represent us, our ideas, our opinions, how can you ignore them now!” Blomfield mentions that the government should “Stop making criminals of parents who choose to bring up their child (children) in a loving and disciplined manner Focus instead on the real issue of violence towards children.” All opinions voiced can be found in the attached link. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10431340
Knowing all too well she wouldn’t find favour with the common citizen, Mrs Bradford “adopted an elite, lobbying-style of politics,” choosing to go from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2009/05/sue-bradford-the-greens-futile-left-option.html Not only was this completely ignoring New Zealand’s democratic system, it suggests the true colours of a person intent on imposing communist-style attributes onto our political system. Even today, Mrs Bradford doesn’t seem content to let society have any input into her unpopular bill. “I think it should be up to the New Zealand Parliament to decide whether it wants to overturn the law.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XFaxThapdQ

If a parent doesn’t want to smack their child as a means of correction, that’s fine. If they believe there are better ways to bring up their child, they’re entitled to do so. Many great citizens exist who were never smacked. What is not acceptable is Bradford’s attempt to intervene and prevent parents from using force as a means of correction. Parents love their children and want the best for them. If smacking is their way of disciplining their child, so be it. If it isn’t, so be it. Don’t listen to Sue Bradford parents; listen to your parenting intuition.

***It has been confirmed by liberal apparatchik Conrad Reyners that the anti-smacking bill was done as a deliberate act of policy. In a guest column with the blog Norightturn he says "The law is very clear. Section 59(2) clearly states that it is illegal to smack your child for the purpose of correction." Reyners goes onto say that "Smacking a child is assault. It is child abuse by definition." Any person who says this bill was never designed to prevent parents smacking their children must no explain  why Conrad Reyners statements are false and provide the sections in the bill which provide parents with the authority to use legal force to smack their children.