• Anti-smacking law insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    “That’s some of the reasons why the ACT party stands for the repeal of this anti-smacking legislation, and that’s why I do too,” said Mr Tashkoff Press Release: Friday, 26 June 2009
  • Recent Posts

  • Networkedblogs

  • Recent Comments

  • Christian Blog Topsites

    Christian Blog Topsites
  • Tags

  • Don’t Vote Labour

    www.dontvotelabour.org.nz
  • Unity For Liberty


    Anti-Smacking Petition
    Signature Counter


  • July 2020
    M T W T F S S
    « Oct    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • abort73

    For more information about abortion and what you can do to help, please visit... Abort73.com http://www.abort73.com/
  • Archives

  • Statcounter since February 2008

  • online counter
  • Meta

  • Blog Catalog since May 2008

  • « | Main | »

    Comments on TVNZ Online eye-to-eye: debate

    By HEF Admin | June 8, 2008

    http://familyintegrity.org.nz/2008/tvnz-online-eye-to-eye-debate/

    Well…I’ve watched this Eye2Eye program.

    It’s the usual useless sort of TV setup that uses a ‘crisis’ as a means of entertainment and solves nothing.

    Anyway…yes, Christine and Richard landed some good hits and got a bit of clarity, but at the end they both fell into a Marxist semantic trap, and unbeknown to themselves began arguing for the other side.

    They started using the language of State/Society ownership of children – “Our children, our babies…” etc, as though corporate man/class man/Marxist man has a greater interest and stake in the welfare of children than parents do, or that parents somehow raise children for the State. (‘State’ and ‘Society’ are intentionally capitalized because today ‘the State’ is the most powerful of modern gods). This view is utterly false and just indicates the degree to which Marxists have captured the language, and thus control the debate. Christine it seemed to me was statist in many of her statements, as was Willie in his closing comment, both effectively saying the State had to solve the problem. In fact ‘the cause of problem’ was never even identified. The swiftness with which they all (not sure about Richard) invoked State intervention at the end was worrying.

    To use Marxist language of State/Society ownership should be anathema to us, as it hands the debate to the Marxists who have the upper hand at the moment. We should look very carefully at all our language and expunge any Marxist terms from our vocab.

    Within the Biblical worldview that has controlled much of Western thought on parenting and children in the past, parents don’t ‘own’ children any more than the state does. God the Creator is the ultimate owner of everything, including children and their parents, and states. However, in this view, what parents do have which the state does not have (ideally a very limited state with little connection to modern day, all encompassing, Socialist States), is the God-given responsibility to raise ‘their’ children (in the sense of offspring rather than ownership) to be God honouring, law abiding, productive people who serve others. Children are given to parents on trust by God, and parents are to steward their children on behalf of God. Parents in many ways stand in the place of God to their children, as his representatives to them as guides, nurturers, and administrators of justice as defined by God. Neither parents nor children are creatures or possessions of States. Thus parents do not raise children and steward them as surrogates of the State.

    And ‘the cause of the problem’?

    It is not ‘environmental’, i.e., colonization, class oppression, disparity of incomes, poor education, hard births or tight nappies as a child. It is ‘internal’ in that humans are individually and corporately rebels against God, and work that rebellion out in a multitude of ways, one of which is for the image of God in children to be abused.

    Unfortunately Richard identified ‘poverty’ as one of the causes of child abuse. This is nothing but a thoughtless and unjustified slur on the myriads of parents throughout all time – the present being no exception – who have been poor but have not abused their children.

    ‘Poverty’ however is another great Marxist lever. Only they have redefined it to mean ‘relative poverty’. Thus, in the latest Investigate Mag, there is a critique of some social action group – clearly Marxist in orientation – who want to set the poverty level in NZ at ‘60% of the median household disposable income after housing costs.’ People with such an income aren’t poor, just relatively poor. They are actually incomprehensibly rich compared to the genuinely poor of the world. Unless their worldview allows for it or endorses it, the genuine poor who live in grinding poverty, are no more abusive than anyone else. We have the irony that the majority of those in the New Zealand Parliament (specifically including Sue Bradford and Helen Clark), and those in the highest positions appointed by the present Government (specifically Cindy Kiro) – all of whom are extremely wealthy, have a worldview that explicitly calls for and justifies the ultimate in child abuse. And so 18000 children are killed in their mother’s wombs every year in New Zealand. The gall of these people to brazenly say they are against child abuse and that poverty is a major cause, and yet exult over the wanton destruction of thousands of children, is almost beyond belief.

    Material wealth or poverty is not an indicator of the likelihood of abuse. Moral/spiritual poverty however is and this may also be externally expressed by drunkenness, drug addiction, crime (dishonesty, theft, violence), promiscuity, unwillingness to work, etc. All of these things head a person to material poverty, and mark some of the distinctions in the book of Proverbs in the Bible between the deserving and undeserving poor.

    The solution? The genuine conversion of violent, abusive individuals to the Christian Gospel, will over night remove those individuals from being abusive to others. If such conversion, with its accompanying transformation of the individual, does not occur and so does not remove the individual from the ranks of the abusers, then the abuse must be responded to as a matter of justice, of a wrong being committed against another. Unfortunately there is a problem at this level also, as today’s NZ Justice System not longer administers justice. Because of the rejection of its Christian roots grounded in the absolute standards of the Biblical worldview, it has lost all philosophical connection to real justice.

    For a number of reasons, the Christian analysis of the problem and solution to it, is not even considered by most today as having any relevance to public societal matters. Thus the real solution is locked away from ever being applied.

    All the best

    Renton

    Topics: News Media/Press Releases | 3 Comments »

    3 Responses to “Comments on TVNZ Online eye-to-eye: debate”

    1. TVNZ Online-eye to eye: debate | Family Integrity Says:
      June 8th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

      […] Comments on TVNZ Online-eye to eye: debate […]

    2. Richie Lewis Says:
      June 10th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

      Hi Renton,

      Your description of my pointing to poverty as a cause of child abuse as “thoughtless and unjustified slur” is a bit harsh and not exactly correct.

      I referred to poverty as one amongst a number of common denominators I have personally identified where abuse is occurring (based on my police experience). I also pointed to other factors including alcohol and drugs and a history of abuse, extreme in many cases, in the life of the abuser.

      I could have taken a Bible and smacked Sue Bradford around the head with it, which is akin to your recommended response… “It is ‘internal’ in that humans are individually and corporately rebels against God, and work that rebellion out in a multitude of ways, one of which is for the image of God in children to be abused.”

      But I think we could perhaps build some bridges towards the opposition and a secularised community, which is as genuinely concerned about abuse as we are, before bringing out the heavy artillery.

      You might not agree with my approach but I do believe we are heading in the same direction so if we can minimise friendly fire we just might get the result we’re all looking for. Those are my thoughts.

      Richie Lewis

    3. Mrs Dianne Woodward Says:
      June 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 am

      Surely 18,000 babies ripped from the womb is the worst form of child abuse and our poor Mums never ever recover from Abortion,it’s a shame Ms Sue Bradford, PM Miss Clark, Cindy Kiro, Jim Anderton & Peter Dunne don’t comment on this tradgedy for our Nation. Soon a light smack will result in parents being jailed, meantime they feel like criminals. Petition at Parliament TODAY with HEAPs MORE signatures means change this election regardless the indoctrination from organisations like Barnadoes NZ, Plunket (Miss Clark should explain slashing funding for Plunket Nurse home visits it’s insane as our Nurses helped so much in getting services to Mums struggling with a new baby) Save the Children, Unicef, National Network Stopping Violence Services, EPOCH NZ, National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges. Christine Rankin believes the employees in these organisations differently and Steve Elers (Karate man in Palmerston North) in his Tribune Fortnightly Column wrote some great articles namely Banning Smacking doesn’t stop Bashing. On Radio Live Willie mentioned he had read Ian Wisharts New Book “Absolute Power” like Bob Jones (Wellington)I also look forward to the Media giving a Book Review maybe it will take a couragous person like Willie to do this I waiting in anticipation their silence deafens me so close to an election.

    Comments