As far as I can tell New Zealand is a Church of England based state and has never undergone separation. In state ceremonies prayers are said and oaths to God are made – no one is wronged by this aspect of church and state integration.
The doctrine of separation of church and state is supposed to avoid religious persecution, state forced indoctrination and state suppression of beliefs however some of the worst persecutors of religious people and indoctrinators have been secular states.
NZ state schools suppress religion due to separation considerations but state indoctrination (Treaty of Waitangi, Global Warming, naturalism, etc.) is compulsory. And in NZ people can be persecuted for their beliefs using the Bill of Rights. These wrongs however do not stem from NZ’s integration of church and state.
The doctrine of separation of church and state doesn’t stop religious persecution, state forced indoctrination or state suppression of beliefs.
The doctrine of separation of church and state seems as likely to cause the problems it is supposed to alleviate.
Hmmm….. yes and no.
Yes in that the separation of church and state in the West is nowhere near as complete as it should be – just look at the US with their “In God we trust” all over the place, and the fact that a non-Christian wouldn’t have a dog’s show of running for President.
The state should not have anything to do with people’s beliefs, and the church should not meddle in the state (church lobby groups, take note).
No in that where we see religion and state *combined* (and the poster-child for this is Islamic countries), we see (IMO) the very worst consequences of that combination. State-sponsored persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, persecution of other minorities in other Islamic countries and so on.
I disagree that NZ is a “Church of England based state”. The state has no interest at all (and *neither should it*) in whether Joe Bloggs goes to church on Sundays and whether he is a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, atheist or anything else.
The separation of religion and state in the West (and the freedom of belief) was a *very long and painfully-achieved* thing.
As imperfect as it may have been implemented (and there *is* room for improvement), there is no doubt at all that it is **light-years** ahead of the alternative – a return to state and religion being combined. I don’;t think Westerners are so foolish as to contemplate that.
Btw – I agree with you when you say “NZ state schools suppress religion due to separation considerations but *state indoctrination* (Treaty of Waitangi, Global Warming, naturalism, etc.) is compulsory. …… These wrongs however do not stem from NZ’s integration of church and state.”
True – they’re not caused by that. They are caused by the *complete control of the education system by left-wingers*.
That’s one reason that I strongly support the introduction of charter schools. Get education out of the hands of the socialists.
“And in NZ people can be persecuted for their beliefs using the Bill of Rights.”
Hmm…. I’m trying to think of an example of that. Do you have any?
“No in that where we see religion and state *combined* (and the poster-child for this is Islamic countries), we see (IMO) the very worst consequences of that combination.”
Surely, though, that is due to the content of the religion involved.
Meh.
It’s none of your business whether churches lobby government or not.
Our government is oath bound to serve the Crown (QE II and her successors).
NZ’s sovereign’s coronation is performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the most senior cleric in the Church of England.
As part of the ceremony the Archbishop of Canterbury asks “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel…”
Has there been a separation of church and state event in NZ?
Thor42
An example.
Reed you need taking outside and your conservative arse given a good spanking!
I agree *Atheist* anti-religious states have been as bad as the worst religious ones.
(please dont bastardize the word ‘secular’! Dont let the atheist claim that term! It does not mean *atheistic* truth…. squares, circles etc are secular truths… but not atheistic truths…. secular science is not *atheistic science*… just simply science…etc Communism is not a secular form of government … but an atheistic one! A secular Libertarian constitution is not an atheistic constitution, but like a square, a circle, it is simply a Rational set of principles… believed by atheists and theists alike !!!)
Glen also Makes a vital point of observation Re the religious tyrannies of the Taleban etc…
I agree to your assertion as to how/ what NZ Government was established, and that comparatively speaking… because it was established in a most enlightened era of western civilization that we do enjoy a higher standard of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, than many other nations… but to say that any ‘injustices’ that remain can be written off with a ‘MEH’… !!!
Because of the lack of establishing an Ironclad constitution in which clear libertarian principles were established in respect to the limits of Government power…we today are being Raped by a Socialist Democracy!
Today the Anglican Church is one of the greatest Lobbys supporting Treaty Separatism .
The Easter Laws persecute many people.
Christian values are very often quoted as reasons why various MPs (like National’s Tim Macindoe) vote against Libertarian reforms.
The Reality is Politics and Religion are both within the sphere of ‘Ethics’ and thus there can never be an *absolute* separation. What needs to be understood is what portion of a persons Religious ethics require State Regulation, State Imposition, State Institution…ie falls within the sphere of Government Jurisdiction, and what porton (if any) exists in the relm of Voluntary submission ie in the sphere of personal liberty and self responsibility. As a Dispensationalist Christian under grace I understand that 90% of the ethics of Christianity do not require legalistic imposition, and that it is only that 10% of essential ethics against fraud, extortion, and violence which must be legally safeguarded…. so as to protect everyone’s lives, liberty, and property, and equal right to their peaceful pursuit of happiness, to live peacefully according to their own conscience, and worship God (or not) according to their own judgment.
And the Libertarian principles perfectly allow me to do just that… without imposing my specific values unique to my personal faith upon anyone.
If anything they prevent me from doing that, and I accept this hindrance for the sake of the safety it would give me (if we actually lived in a libertarian free society) from having others impose their rules on me.
Thus I believe the few Universal laws which form the overlapping consensus between all peaceful people are the Laws which ought to be enforced, and all other ethics then fall into the domain of Freedom and self responsibility. And the best short description of this theory is that ‘All human interactions ought to be voluntary”. Why this works is because when you look at what crimes are there is always one party who is an involuntary party in that interaction.
We may add to this that we are sovereign over our own bodies. and a few other simple principles which everyone will deem to be true about themselves (those people who insist ‘God owns their body’… are actually asserting their own personal sovereignty in making that declaration!)
What is really the essential question is to what degree…what portion of their personal beliefs….are anyone… Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Hondo, Buddhist, etc willing to relegate to the separate sphere of personal liberty, and what portion do they insist be compulsory upon all.
The answer to this will determine whether your faith is conducive to Peaceful cohabitation with others of different beliefs… and freedom, or is Legalistic and anti-freedom… and thereby conducive to war… and is against the notion of a man being free to follow the dictates of his own convictions.
I am happy to report that My Dispensational doctrines of Christian Grace from my teacher St Paul allow me to maximize my peaceful co-existence with sinners and infidels… and to love and respect them, and endeavor to save them from Damnation.
It is from theses Principles of grace that I get my premises and values, and Libertarian political ideals…. My enlightenment is that Christianity is a loving Humanitarian voluntary association which respects ther rights and liberties of all humanity as universal and equal… even when they reject Christ, and Christian values…. They are free to do so as long as the don’t hurt anyone else in the process.
Thus my personal beliefs allow me to endorse a Libertarian constitution and limits on Government spheres of operation, and I will happily put my signature next to the Atheist, the Hindu, or any other politically enlightened person who will respect my equal right to exist and peacefully pursue my own happiness, and worship God as I see fit, and preach my gospel, and teach my children my values.
Tim, we need a rule on this – no comment is to be longer than the original post. 😉
I don’t know whose arse you were spanking but it wasn’t mine.
Gotta go… I’ll comment more later.
Tim, could you accept a Christian kingdom? 🙂
Reed says… “Tim, could you accept a Christian kingdom? 🙂 ”
My reply is *Only in It’s purity…when Christ is the King*.
*That changes everything!*
Christ has the Divine right to make Laws which encroach into the Religious Domain, and to run a theocracy. He does not have to tolerate infidelity or falce religion of any sort.
When Christ is King, the Dispensation of Grace will be finished, and so too will the our pilgrimage as Libertarian strangers in a strange land be over.
*All my Libertarian political Ideals* are relative to Human government… and are not binding upon God.
This is fundamental.
Any Christian Libertarian who thinks that Christ’s government must ‘respect the ‘rights’ of Satanists, atheists, etc have only one Oar in the water!
Christ’s Theocracy will not be a Libertarian society, but a pure ‘Godly’ kingdom. (There will still be sinners, and crimes, and ultimate rebellion, yet God will judge all these things)
Worship of Christ the King will be *compulsory*.
This is a legitimate compulsion …in that day… but until then …under our dispensation of Grace… such a compulsion is against the current program of God in which He allows us to freely choose to receive Christ or not.
Thus a Libertarian system is what best fits the current dispensation of grace.
If you are specking about merely a Christian King within this current dispensation of grace, then (Ironically) I could only be happy living in such a ‘Christian kingdom’ if the Christian King was a Libertarian… (and then that is in reality a Libertarian Kingdom!), which would be as acceptable to me as living under a Muslim Libertarian King, or an Atheist Libertarian King… for the simple reason that in all cases they would leave us free to live according to our own faith, and would not impose their personal beliefs upon the population by force.
If I live under a Muslim Libertarian King, I would Praise him for his justice, and I would pray for his safety and wellbeing, and for his children… and for his conversion to Christ.
If I lived under a Christian King who tried to compel Atheists and Muslims into accepting Christ, or oppressed them by banning their right to worship Alah, or not worship anyone… I would condemn that King, and would speak up for the rights of Atheists and Muslims!
I would say that the King was behaving in a most unchristian manor!
And that he brings shame upon the Name of Christ.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
Tim
I think I have used the term “secular” correctly according to common dictionary definitions. An atheistic state is a secular state (If not, what could an atheistic state do to become secular?) However, the definition of the word “secular” is beside the point – the point being that actual separation of church and state is no impediment to committing religious persecution, state forced indoctrination or state suppression of beliefs.
Reread my original post and tell me which statements you consider to be incorrect.
Thor42
What do you think should happen to churches that lobby?
Not at all Reed! That is a false and modern *Bastardization* of the term secular, and results from the atheists trying to monopolise *Reason*…and suggest that any truth which does not expressly state *God*… is an atheist truth!
This is one of Satans Greatest lies!
I probably need to do a blog post on this subject.
…your dictionary is a contaminated/ subverted engine of Atheism…. probably endorsed by our Education system. A Libertarian Government is a secular state, yet it is *by definition* not an atheist state…or a Theocracy.
by surrendering secular truth’s to atheism, is to render Theism absolutely Myth… absolutely Anti-reason… and to make Christians reject libertarianism… because they aprehend it as being ‘secular’ !!!!!!!! *that is the Great Satanic deception!!!*
This is where the line is drawn in the sand And we theists must be prepared to fight to the death !…. never surrendering *reason* as the Preserve and high ground of Atheism!
The definition of ‘atheistic’ is even more fraught than the definition of ‘secular’.
Atheism in the public square
Was Ayn Rand a Satanist?
I give two different definitions of atheism in the above posts. An atheistic state is a secular state according to the second (correct) definition but not according to the first.
The definition of the word “atheist” is also beside the point.
I hope the definition of “church” is not a problem.
Reed, a constitution is no impediment to the unconstitutional.
The price of freedom is Eternal Vigilance! 🙂
Richard, is the law no impediment to the lawless?
Just one thing:
“When Christ is King”
huh?