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.
7 comments:
The foundations of English Law and based on the Bible and from these laws, New Zealand law was established. Thomism recognizes four different species of law, which he defines as "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated." The English law derived its moral code from the Bible. You mention karmic law in an "actions have consequences." ? People get away with lying, stealing and sometimes killing in their lives. What happens to them?
You begin to start waffling when you say "your God was responsible for any moral decision we as humans make" and that takes away free will. From the very beginning of the Bible God gave human beings free will. The parable of Adam and Eve where God says "Eat from any tree you choose, except the one in the middle." It seems as if you have misconstrued what has been said in the column. Whilst the Ten Commandments may be from the Old Testament and Jesus' moral teachings are from the New Testament, there are mentions that Jesus makes himself to the ten commandments, emphasising they are still relevant. Jesus' being a Jew is not relevant to the topic. Neither of the arguments you put forth have anything to do with the premise. You mention Karmic law and the generational gap between Moses and Jesus. No moral ontological argument whatsoever. If you don't believe in God, then what is your foundation for objective moral values? This Karmic circle idea you put forth is flawed and full of loopholes.
Read through my article again. If you want to talk about the figures Chritianity, that's fine. Leave that for another time though. Your criticisms of Christianity's influence are brittle, unconvincing and withered. In concluding you say "Saying I believe in this person as the perfect example of already-held values' doesn't mean those values start with you" again slides away from the main topic.
This answer is in rebuttal to the comment put forth by Cliffton Lunt
You can't really cite the bible as the ultimate source of these doctrines and laws you refer to.
A) such societal rules were present beforehand, albeit it in a relaxed circumstances relating to class barriers and such. The general consensus however was that if you kill someone, or steal from someone, something will happen to you. Its a karmic circle. Its common sense.
B) if you truly want to remain adamant that your God was responsible for any moral decision we as humans make ( despite the obvious paradox of free will ) then citing the bible is wrong. Those rules you refer to are part of the 10 commandments were they not? Given to a HEBREW in EGYPT. Jesus wasn't even a twinkle in an angels eye.
So the argument that Christianity is 'foundationally important' is hypocritical and narrow-minded. Jesus was a Jew.
The 10 commandments were given to a Hebrew refugee.
I'd say that has more claims to being of 'foundational importance' to modern society worldwide.
Saying 'I believe in this person as the perfect example of already-held values' doesn't mean those values start with you.
There is no doubt about that Sam. I make no mention about the Bible in Schools being taught. The criticism is aimed at Peter Harrison and the other parents being ill informed about the influence Christianity has within our society. No jump to justifying Bible in schools has been made or will be made as my knowledge about how it's run etc are too limited.
My argument is that Christianity has influenced New Zealand laws and morals and that an alternative ethics class is unlikely to work as the youth will rebel against a lot of these teachings as teenagers. Any topic on Bible in Schools, Greek Philosophy and the Koran are another conversation altogether.
I'm unsure of who you are Diaperboy4 (and now Inspectornemo) but if you are going to make such comments, use such filthy language and make personal attacks, the very least you must do is be bold enough to use your real name rather than hiding under a pseudonym.
In the very brief attempt you make at criticising what I actually did say in my blog is "Stuart it is wrong to protest against a non christian parent to ban religious studies in a public school, open your eyes if you were forced to take the study of quaran, would like it that way?" You say it is wrong without really elaborating. What's wrong about my column? I was criticising Peter Harrison for his comments on Christianity being exclusive and that the bible is some archaic text and responded with the influence Christianity has had on New Zealand (read the title). There was also a paragraph on how an suggested ethics course is unlikely to be of any benefit, long term.
In response to your question, the law does provide 30 minutes a week to allow Religious study to be done, provided the parents can withdraw their children from it. So irrespective of it being the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, or Dianetics, if a parent doesn't want their kid learning about it, the child doesn't have to. Quite the contrary to your babble about kids being forced into "talk s*** that is not relevant to them."
I'm willing to talk respond to the rest of what you have said, provided you reply under your real name, or come and talk with me in the flesh.
Post a Comment