Entry 544, on 2007-05-31 at 19:42:38 (Rating 3, News)
It looks like religious extremists are trying to hijack my country! By "my country" I mean New Zealand. Fundamentalists already have too much control in the USA and I suppose the more extreme churches here see this and think "why can't we get some of that action as well."
The fundies won't get their wish because New Zealanders, as a rule, just aren't religious. The prime minister has said she is agnostic, and as I have pointed out in the past, there is no real difference between being an agnostic and an atheist. For an American political figure, admitting atheism would be political suicide. Here no one even really noticed. That's the difference between the two countries, and I'm certainly glad we have that attitude instead of the mindless reaction of most Americans.
The fact that atheists are so feared and loathed in the US just shows how insidious the propaganda of the churches is, as well as how unthinking most people there are for not really questioning the idea.
A poll in the Herald today showed 45% of people thought Christianity should be our official state religion. What are these people thinking? I suspect there has been a campaign organised by the churches to bias those figures, but I'm still shocked that so many people would vote for such an outrageous idea. As I said above, its unlikely to happen unless the support is a lot higher than that, but what sort of person would even contemplate the idea to start with?
Having a state religion is just insane. Religion has no part in our modern world for a start, but if some people still want to follow one then all religions should at least be presented equally without a bias introduced by the state.
Of course, what having a state religion actually means is open to question. Would that mean a particular religion was taught as if it was the truth in schools? Would it mean we would have state sponsored religious material in the media? Would it mean we have to swear allegiance to a particular god during official ceremonies? Would it mean a particular church would get state funding, tax breaks, or other financial perks? Would it mean that some church leaders automatically take part in the decision making process? I don't think any of those options are acceptable to any fair-minded person, but they are all real effects of state religion elsewhere. We need to make sure that the idea remains a mere fantasy in the mind of religious freaks like Brian Tamaki and that the whole obscene idea never goes any further.
Comment 1 by SH004 on 2007-06-03 at 20:50:40:
God seems to be mentioned several times in your national anthem, which I think sounds good in Maori. I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just needed to point that out. Oh... and Tamaki is a nut.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2007-06-03 at 20:51:07:
I don't think our anthem sounds too good in any language! And I hate all the references to god. But all the superficial, meaningless stuff like that doesn't really mean anything in comparison to the practical aspects of having an official religion I mentioned in the blog entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE