Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki continues to dream about achieving political power. He fails to understand that New Zealand is very different to the USA, and the urging of his US mentors is only setting him up for failure.
In a splendid example of this self-defeating blindness, he mustered out his Destiny Church to protest against a conference on religious tolerance.
The best thing I’ve read about it has been Matt over at the Xenodochian, discussing Tamaki’s claim that New Zealand is a Christian nation with characteristic insight. Go read.
—
Meanwhile, looney-tunes US cultist Fred Phelps has for a long time drawn mockery from pretty much everyone for the views his sect promotes. And when you watch this video you’ll see exactly why, once you’ve finished gawping/laughing in disbelief/crying/laughing and crying and gawping all at once. It’s a parody of ‘We Are The World’ called ‘God Hates The World’. And, yes, all of these singers are desperately sincere – the Phelps doctrine is that God hates everyone except Phelps and his circle.
Enjoy. And be very afraid.
—
Oh, just remembered! Courtesy the other moose – a big big article about Freaks & Geeks/Undeclared/40-Year Old Virgin maestro Judd Apatow, concerning his new film. If you are reading this and don’t know any of these references, consider yourself urged to correct that situation forthwith.
I couldn’t make it all the way through, but what I heard was incredible-well, incredibly small minded, and mixed up. They sing that you can’t do anything to stop god’s wrath, but then all the “fags” and “flag burners” need to just stop.
If you’re already on the highway to hell, do you apply the brakes?
And, why is this shit always from my fucking country?
I went out to the boonies to camp, and on the way back rolled through some small towns that encapsulate small town America mentality to the fullest. I think there’s a much bigger difference between city and country people here than in NZ…..but that’s a different topic.
Yeah God’s fanatics!
Without supporting Bishop Tamaki in any way, I think it is fair to say that New Zealand is a secular Christian nation. The big holidays, Christmas and New Year, are enshrined in law, more so than in the more overtly Christian US even; the dominant language is enfused with Christianisms, to the point that a lot of the time we don’t even notice them; and the dominant moral philosophy about what is and is not a right thing to do is adopted out of two thousand years of Christian thought.
At the same time, people don’t have to go to church to be considered decent people by their neighbours, and in my own experiences people who definitely don’t identify themselves as Christian in either secular or religious senses get a lot of good will – from just about everyone except, ironically, the Christian Right. And I think that the separation of Church and State is a good thing, when they get mixed in together they turn into an excuse for a lot of nastiness.
I like religious diversity. You get more excuses for parties. 🙂
(Sorry, that was me.)
My two cents in a similar vein to Stephanie:
While I could never bring myself to agree with Brian Tamaki, I do find interesting the dilemma that New Zealanders tend to face these days. New Zealand European culture is deeply rooted in Christian tradition. But at the same time, it appears we are trying to divorce what we do from where we came from.
The current debate seems to be about removing the Christian “God†as the “only one†defending New Zealand, and separating everyday public events from their religious origins. However, while Muslim, Hindu, Jewish religions all have rites, rituals and events outside of the “secular†NZ society, Christianity’s events are NZ society’s events, like Easter, Christmas, godparent-hood, marriage (as in a traditional church wedding here “under godâ€, rather than an under-law union). Even baptism sometimes seems to fall under that category.
With almost nothing to differentiate “Christian life†from secular life, aside from an extreme, radical religious position, it’s probably not surprising Tamaki and co take to the extreme to make a point, and use that as a rallying cry. At the moment, they can claim that Christianity is the foundation of the principles of New Zealand culture, and by acknowledging those politically, we are validating Christianity’s claim to them as Christianity’s own.
Think of other symbols that are “co-optedâ€: A tattoo for Mike Tyson is not the same as a traditional moko, though outwardly they are. The dance based on Maori style performed by females is a bit different from women performing a haka. And burning a piece of cloth at an ANZAC day celebration is not as meaningful as burning a flag. I am not a terribly patriotic or religious person, but I understand the offence taken by those who do believe. And I can see the same thing here.
By trying to separate not Church from State but Church from NZ Society, the Christian churches will lose what they see to be the meaning in most of the things we do. Actions definitely speak louder than words, and people can act more “Christian†than many Christians do (to use a recent example on your blog, a great “godparent†doesn’t have to be religious). But in trying to make NZ a more secular, inclusive place to be in word as well as deed, the Christians stand to lose a huge amount of pride and faith in some of what they define to be New Zealand.
In a way, I respect that they are willing for fight for that. In other ways…
Preliminary statement: I generally agree with the description of “Christian-secular”. But…
“the dominant moral philosophy about what is and is not a right thing to do is adopted out of two thousand years of Christian thought” – Yes and no. I think this conflates “Christian” and “European” – not without cause, but it’s certainly not as cut and dried as is normally made out: historical research of the period before Christianity was the dominant religion in Europe shows Christian and Pagan moral codes moving in near-unison, suggesting that even if those moral codes were religious *in expression*, they were cultural before they were religious *in origin* [see, for example, “Christian and Pagan in an Age of Anxiety” by E.R. Dodds].
A quick example of “religious morality” and “cultural morality” not moving in step is in “Christian” societies’ reactions to the bombing of the Buddhas of Bamayan. Said “Christian” societies do tend to hold up the Ten Commandments as evidence of their moral code, and as part of that secularisation process also consider it to represent a moral code that has application to a secular society, ie that it “works” as a code regardless of one’s religious convictions. That doesn’t quite hold water: the bombing of the Buddhas of Bamayan is not only Correct Practice according to Commandments 1 and 2, but to abhor the bombing is to put yourself on the side of the devils (and though not explicitly within the Commandments themselves, to abhor *any* of the Ten Commandments is punishable by death).
I’m not saying that Christians *shouldn’t* abhor the bombings (one of the points of Christ’s teachings is that such moral codes aren’t as sacrosanct as your religious teachers tell you), but there’s a *lot* more going on a society in forming its moral codes than religion, even if that society is apparently entirely unsecularised.
For what its worth, I think there’s a lot of room for definitional dancing within the phrase “a Christian nation”. I think that when Brian Tamaki uses the phrase, he means it as a rationale for a programme of social change. It isn’t a descriptive term; it is, in fact, the language of a combative mythology, because it holds up an ideal and says “we have fallen from this ideal but we have not forgotten it and we will fight to reclaim it”.
R: I’m mostly in tune with what you say – particularly the points about co-opted culture – but I think you reach too far. It is inarguable that NZ society draws heavily on Christianity (or, as Andrew points out, our European heritage), but I don’t think that means they are the same thing. To my eyes, Christmas and Easter long ago left the control of the Christian churches, and the impetus there is to reclaim them from the secular world; I don’t think that is inconsistent with generally becoming more welcoming of a multi-faith worldview and a society that is defined as secular.
I am sorry if I implied that I thought NZ Society and Christianity were the same thing. I would put it slightly differently and say that NZ was founded as a christian country (well, I imagine so as I wasn’t there), but since then, Christianity and NZ Society have separated but have been travelling (for the most part) along similar lines. What you seem to be saying is that Christmas and Easter as practised by most New Zealanders is really just paying ‘lip service’ to their Christian origins – they are festivals that once were Christian but are now more secular – and I would definitely have to agree to that.
However, considering these festivals themselves were coopted from pagan religions to be used by Christianity, and that those pagan origins have been forgotten (well, aren’t really seriously considered), I would imagine that the Christian Churches would be afraid that Christmas and Easter are losing their connection to Christianity in much the same way – in other words, it is there, but not theirs. Making that “official” though is a big step.
Christianity has gotten where it is by its teachings (of course) but also by making itself a part of day to day life and either eliminating or coopting things that get in its way (like how it has become a “Pacific” religion by taking some traditional island beliefs and practices and incorporating those into how it is practiced here). One could see “secularisation” as doing the same thing.
I am not saying it is a bad thing at all – I am just wondering whether Brian and co are getting so antsy as they might believe this is what is happening as they know how successfully it has worked for them.
R – interesting. Thanks for the clarification. I think I have to agree with everything you say here. Will ponder!
This is a brilliant clip. It expressed to me the dangers of religious fanatics.
What would have capped it off very well would have been images of those planes flying into the World Trade Center on Sept 11 2001. That is religious fanatics operating at their best, regardless of what religion it may be about. But I suppose showing such images would not be “politically correct”.
You know, George Bush, searching leftie discussion sites to find leftie blogs to troll is just sad. But I believe you’re a drive-by troll, so I doubt you’ll ever read this amusing put-down! I suppose, then, the chump is me.