Family First are "religious extremists"?

Well according to this Sunday Star Times editorial they are.

The problem with the Liberal left is that they fail to comprehend that all social problems have their origin in mankind's fallen nature. And that no amount of legislation, no program that they can come up with can or ever will   address this.

So we see last week, for example, a sad story of a police crackdown on underage prostitution.

Did Tim Barnett's child, the Prostitution Reform Act do anything to save these children?  Maybe it even helps drive problem. Perhaps part of the appeal for those who use prostitutes is the illegality of what they are doing.  Forbidden fruit and all that. Government blessed "Safe sex" with a legal prostitute maybe is just   too clinical to have any appeal to the customers who sought out these children.

What would save children from being exploited in this manner would be safe homes and nurturing families. And is saying this "extremism" or just common sense.

And of  course our cultural elites while playing lip  service to the ideal of the nuclear family,  undermine it at every turn. Another of Tim Barnett's pet projects was the Civil Union bill of course. It seems harmless enough, or even tolerant and "inclusive". But in reality it changes the fundamental focus of marriage from one of providing a stable platform for the foundation of a child centered family, to that of individual fulfillment and personal gratification.  The new meme of "partnership" actually celebrates selfishness rather than commitment and certainly not a commitment to the next generation.

And so it is with Sue Bradford's baby.

It is just another way the State can step in to undermine parental authority and break the bonds that tie families together and accomplish nothing at all in preventing the dysfunctional who thrash children with dog chains and worse from doing the same.

The real solution to all our social problems lies in changing peoples hearts and that can only be accomplished at an individual level not by sledgehammer legislation.

We still have a long way to go in that regard folks.

Comments

[dad4justice]

Tim Barnett and Sue Bradford are both a total disgraceful to the integrity of New Zealand .

Murder and child abuse statistics are going through the roof and all the SST can do is bag good intentions from concerned Christian groups . I am livid !!

[John Boy]

What I found surprising was the fuss made about those using the services relative to the lack of fuss about parents allowing their kids to be doing this (and some were allegedly). Parents are meant to keep their children safe from creeps.

[Ryan Sproull]

Parents shouldn't be left unsupervised. They have a sinful fallen nature.

[Jim]

I particularly like the way the editor blithely lumps Act voters into the "motley fanatic" box.
Karl Marx would have been proud of him.

[Ryan Sproull]

I particularly like the way the commenter blithely lumps liberals with Karl Marx.

[Sean]

It's the opening paragraph to the editorial that sums up why I never buy the SST. What a load of biased drivel:

"The Right has found a heavy club to beat the government with: a referendum on smacking at the next election. This is a brilliant ploy by the religious extremists of Family First. It will gather not only libertarians, Act voters and other motley fanatics of that kind, but many decent and ordinary people. It is as though the Brethren had found a cause that appealed to the mainstream. The political and social effects are likely to be large and wholly malign."

[Acid Comments]

"Tim Barnett and Sue Bradford are both a total disgraceful to the integrity of New Zealand."

Yeah and they're "Political Extremists." Hell bent on getting their warped and twisted views foisted on the majority!

[reid]

Nice summary of the lefty agenda andrei. What's surprising to me is that some conservatives such as Farrar swallowed the line that the social engineering was really to do with human rights.

The social engineering agenda is so freaking obvious that you'd have to be thicker than a whale omellet not to get it. And we all know that Farrar isn't thick. So I really do wonder why do he and some others don't see what is as plain as day.

[James]

Prostitution law reform was certainly about upholding human rights.....real ones being the rights to liberty,pursuit of happiness and property.

Prostitution is not a crime but a vice....therefore no business of the State.

But the State still has its regulations and red tape wraped around this consensual human activity so problems remain....sigh.

[Rick]

Yes that about sums it up Andrei. It's that strange type that believes prohibition doesn't work, but then bans smacking. that freeing up access to alcohol and drugs will reduce accidents when the opposite is true. Basically, prohibition works when they say it does, but not when a "filthy proscriptive conservative" does.

The strangest thing is why so many intelligent people support it, when the facts disprove it.

What can you do?

Reid said: "...So I really do wonder why do he and some others don't see what is as plain as day..."

Far as I can tell, some of the thing "liberals" believe has nothing to do with being "liberal" and everything to do with them projecting their dreams of how life should be onto society. Prolonged Projection of anything is a recipe for disaster. David Farrar has friends he likes to keep sweet with, many people do, it's not a personal Farrar flaw. He is also of a particular personality type. "Birds of a feather etc etc..."

[Lucyna]

Religious extremists?

If Family First are extreme because they are campaigning to repeal the repeal of S59, then the SST would have total fainting fits over the Christian Martyrs willing to die for the faith. Maybe the person who wrote the editorial is already having fits and nightmares.

[usabikes]

Glad to see no-ones feeding the trolls...

There was an outfit called "Stop the abuse" or similar that stated at the time of the Prost. Ref. law that this would lead to more underage girls being drawn into this hellish pit. Few, not even among our leaders who are supposedly 'feminists', seemed to take them seriously at the time. No doubt they were also untrustworthy lobbiests.

The writer makes a fair point about the problems in wording referenda questions, but apart from that their somewhat excitable attacks on "extremists" who think differently (oh, only 80-90% of the population) on the smacking law only shows says how much they are out of touch with NZ.

And once again sinister machiavellian motives are attributed to any Christians who just want the govt to but-out of their lives. Sigh.

Christianity: the only religion in the country that has to shut up.

[usabikes]

Rick said: "Far as I can tell, some of the thing "liberals" believe has nothing to do with being "liberal" and everything to do with them projecting their dreams of how life should be onto society."

I think your'e dead right Rick.

Found this news report the other day. From Nov. 27th, 1937.

"German parents risk having their children taken from them if they are not sufficiently rigorous in drilling the Nazi ethos into them. 'Your child belongs to us already,' Hitler told a critic... Every child was to grow up knowing only Nazi values, he said.

Now a judge has made it law. A Christian pacifist family at Waldenberg in Silesia refused to teach their children the Nazi ideology and were taken to court. The judge said: 'The law as a racial and national instrument entrusts German parents with the education of their children only on condition they do so in the fashion that that nation and the state expect.'

The judge said that the children would grow up to be 'enemies of the state'. He ordered the children to be made wards of the state."

It is troubling to me that, with just a slight variation, one can now see members of our classes of influence following a similar line of logic. All for the greater good of course.

First they came for the Christian homeshoolers...

[dave crampton]

The SST said that Family FIrst was a significant player at the last election and it is using the referendum as a tool to elect Labour.

As I have noted, Family First didn't exist at the last election so hardly a significant player. The referendum is not theirs, either.

Extremist, inaccurate reporting.

[John Boy]

"Christianity: the only religion in the country that has to shut up."

Yep and that's kind of healthy as its is yet another sign that its the One.

[Psycho Milt]

Christianity: the only religion in the country that has to shut up.

I'm sorry? Has to shut up? If this is the silent version, I'd hate to see yaz deciding to get mouthy...

[Sean]

Psycho - putting aside the fundy nutters that get more than their fair share of media attention (albeit negative) I find the mainstream churches don't speak up as much as they could do. In a way I find this disppointing but at the same time I can see that they may want to stay away from (above) petty politics. When they do come out and say something, at least we know they _mean_ it.

[dad4justice]

Sean - "mainstream churches" are a disgraceful mess endorsed by their callous silence on Family Matters .Are they all on the Lairbour payroll ?

Many unholy alliances exist in the land where heretic's are rewarded, while political corruption and dehumanization is standard procedure .

I blame the "mainstrean churches" for many of the societal problems faced by a generation of out of control youth .They have a moral obligation to expose the recalcitrant attitude shown by a callous and schizo Prime Minister .

Would a real church leader please stand up . Oh, that's right , speak up and you be called a "fundy nutter" You're type make me sick !!

[usabikes]

Then again guys, maybe this kind of thing is only going to get worse.

Look at this recent article from England concerning the govt response to RC Bishops promoting things like abstinence and pro-life policies. It would be funny if it wasn't so......weird.

"MPs challenge 'doctrinaire' bishops"

"Roman Catholic bishops are to appear in front of a powerful committee of MPs amid fears that they are pushing a fundamentalist brand of their religion in schools. Bishops have called on parents, teachers and priests to strengthen the role of religion in education... Barry Sheerman, chairman of the parliamentary cross-party committee on children, schools and families...said... 'It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith[!!!!!]. But as soon as there is a more doctrinaire attitude questions have to be asked. It does become worrying when you get a new push from more fundamentalist bishops...'"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0; 2233421; 00.html

Did this man hear what just came out of his mouth? Amazing. Well, at least he's being honest.

This seems to me to be the flip slide of Multi-culturalism, encouragement of all other belief systems and the suppression of that of our own culture's.

One wonders what this MP expects from Catholic Bishops? What is called a "new push" of "fundamentalism" is basic Christian teaching. Western civilisation was built on teaching such as this. And now its fundamentalism?

What the people who criticise Family First and the Catholic Church seem to forget is that they are only pushing for some of the standards which were completely mainstream only a few short years ago (or in the case of the smacking debate, this year). How can this represent "extremism"?

[A.J.Chesswas]

anyone know who wrote this editorial?