Thursday, April 23, 2009

Lucia Anti-Catholic Fear Mongering in NZ

A recent post by Paul of Canterbury Atheists really deserves a longer comment that this meagre one I am about to give. But, I think that even if I do no more than exposing this sort of anti-Catholic fear-mongering (which pops up so regularly in history as to follow a predictable pattern), then for now I have done enough.
Why should the non-Catholics amongst us, grant special privileges, like a tax-free life-style, to a group that wants to play by its own rules, and rejects the very system we ‘spilled blood’ to keep?

So why does secular society, like here in New Zealand, allow groups in our midst to operate outside the bounds we consider to be fair, for the rest of us?

Allows them to set-up a sepearte schooling system, that selects children on the basis of their parents religion?

The N.Z National Front can’t come-out and say “we don’t want none of them Jews n’ blacks”, without facing state sanction.

Yet, the same state authorities endorse sexism in Churches up and down the country, by taking the default position.

Even if The N.Z Government, made it illegal for Churches to select employees in a non-sexist fashion – the Churches in New Zealand don’t take orders from the state anyway!

Their mandate comes from overseas, exploiting the very freedoms, that they themselves reject outright.

The irony here is that Western democracy grew from Christian countries. Secularism, likewise, is allowed and supported in those same countries. While as any political system that is largely atheistic (think Communism) is totalitarian in nature and seeks to suppress any system of thought, religious or otherwise, that it deems to be in competition to it.

Have a read of the two articles below to see what has happened historically when non-Catholics start to consider Catholics to be a threat to either their nation or their interests. Many of the arguments used to justify anti-Catholic persecution are very similar to those that Paul, the Canterbury Atheist uses.

German Catholics Under the Iron Fist: Bismarck and the Kulturkampf ~ Matthew E. Bunson, This Rock

Québec and French America: What Might Have Been ~ Gary Potter,

Related Link: Churches are largely at odds with Western Democracy ~ Canterbury Atheists*

*WARNING: The heading of the blog displays "man-eating sheep". Not recommended for the easily disturbed.

ZenTiger's response: Freedom of Religion

21 comment(s):

scrubone said...

He appears to be saying that churches should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Or to put it another way, religion should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Of course, when you put it like that it's obvious what he really means.

Lucia Maria said...

It becomes more obvious when you read his other posts as well.

ZenTiger said...

Hah! I started writing a post about this post earlier today. Ran out of time. Hopefully, I'll pop my response up later tonight.

Greg said...

Yes, the horror of undemocratic Churches that provide the capital assets supporting 20% of New Zealand's education system yet have no influence over principal and teacher appointments. How unrepresentative!

Doesn't the Cantabrian realize that state integration is probably the best way of diluting and neutralizing unique cultures!! If I were him/her I'd keep quiet and let them finish the job.
Send your kid to a private Montessori instead, if you can abide the fact it was inventing by a devout Catholic that is.

Is it now part of the Antipodean mythos that the diggers at ANZAC cove died for the cause of free and fair elections and the horror of a sauerkraut eating German bred monarch?
Perhaps we should have asked why Georgie changed the family name to Windsor during WW1!!

Lucia Maria said...

BC, I don't think deductive reasoning and historical knowledge are his strong points. But, saying that, dogged persistence might eventually get him somewhere .. hopefully to a place he doesn't expect to be true.

Libertyscott said...

Well I am no theist but:

I think the tax system should be neutral and very low, and I'd have no tax privileges (and it isn't peculiar to Catholics).

I don't care what ANY groups do, as long as they don't initiate force or fraud on anyone else.

I don't care who sets up schools, as long as they are fully fee paying, I wouldn't restrict them at all. Let them choose children on whatever basis they want, it is their school!

The National Front SHOULD be allowed to be explicitly racist, and get the public response that would be expected and justified.

Sexism by the private sector SHOULD be allowed, and get the public response that would be expected and justified.

I don't care who Catholics have loyalty to or whatsoever, as long as they do not initiate force or fraud against individuals, and by extension want to create a theocracy - then let them be.

I will, of course, oppose any drive to introduce laws that DO initiate force or fraud, regardless of religious or non religious basis for it.

Canterbury Atheists said...

Haa haa ‘Anti-Catholic Fear Mongering’ I love it!

You should get a job for ‘NZ Truth’.

Face up to it - the days when religion, had a free ride in this country are over. Out of that growing number of non-superstitious population are coming the more vociferous individuals like me, who are not afraid to challenge the very foundations of your belief eg. ‘there was no Jesus’ but also the enshrined systems of governance within the worlds major churches (which is what this article was about, if you had have permitted it to be published in it’s entirety) it’s tax free life-style, it’s ability to be exempted human-right laws etc.

There are people in society I revere. Sir Edmund Hillary, Cameron Brown but this is reverence born of what they have achieved as people – not their self appointed social status.

The reverence, at a guess, you inherited from your parents and you want to protect for reasons nothing other than tradition.

No one taught me to pay honour to the local priest, his boss in Rome, nor the system of misogynistic fascism they employ to remain in power –so I’m going to continue to point the blow torch on the y-fronts.

I say what I think, not what I was taught as a kid, and now regurgitating as an adult.

I don’t have to believe in talking snakes, bats are birds, Noah and his ark, women being cursed, six day creations – but if you do that’s fine by me.

But don’t think you are exempt examination.

Pub time soon, so looking forward to that first pint.

See ya.


PS: Border Collie I found a quote that best sums-up your position “"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people." (Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933)

mzala said...

It would also appear that you were deprived of attention as a child and that equally, you were not listened to. In a spirit of charity, I sincerely recommend you get a real job, my son. You see Paul,the devil does find work (and words) for idle hands (and minds). "When I was a child, my thoughts, words and deeds were those of a child. Now that I am an adult, I have no more need of childish ways" although I still keep the faith taught to me as a child as much as I still say that vegetables are good for you and so are vitamins but there again, I was taught this as a child.
Your fixation on Hitler is quite peculiar. Methinks that secretly you have a devotion of sorts, possibly a reverence. He did achieve a lot you know.
Paul, the Catholic church has survived for 2000 years and I PROMISE YOU THAT IT WAS NOT DUE TO IT'S TAX-EXEMPT STATUS. Looking around Paul, smelling the Western air,I gotta admit that the days of a 'free-ride' are over. Persecution awaits. The blood of Christians will be spilled as it is in China, Iraq, Parts of Asia and Africa and India as it has for the last 2000 YEARS.
P.S. Sir Ed (RIP) was buried in an Anglican church.It appears that he knew something that you don't or obviously have forgotten.
On a lighter note, it would appear contrary to earlier 'proofs' that the Turin Shroud is at least 2000 years old.Still in my prayers, my son.

Greg said...

Theists can admit that nasty people claim to be God-fearing and that churchs contain criminals and saints. Stalin attended an Orthodox seminary for a while, Hitler was baptised Catholic, used Christian and pagan rhetoric, lied like a rug, and then happily sent Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Priests, and Pastors to the chambers, noose, and fresh-dug trenches.
Inconsistent? Sure, but that's reality. Totalitarian dictators are manipulative homicidal pr1c4s who resist common categories.

Why then, do "atheist" spokespeople strive to purify themselves of anything that appears weak and ignore the good in anyone else?

Can't you accept that a sweaty Pol Pot, who learned his Communism on the left-bank of Paris, was probably a wee tad atheist?
But, so what if he was, eh? What does it matter? Is "atheism" founded on personal perfection? Whaddarya, Manicheans?!!

Or are all "atheists" supposed to be perfect plumy clones of Dawkins? Born to money, sent to the right schools, speaking with the proper accents, tastefully dressed, consistent and free of hypocrisy, dirt and error? Gee, that's a realistic goal.

KG said...

"..Out of that growing number of non-superstitious population are coming the more vociferous individuals like me, who are not afraid to challenge the very foundations of your belief"
My, how brave you must sound in your own mind, CA.
In fact, the population is becoming increasingly superstitious, as the very large rise in popularity of astrology and 'magic' and so forth demonstrates.
What are you so afraid of? Because your fear shouts out from almost everything you write, much like a little boy trying to convince himself there are no ghosts under the bed...
Your atheism is a 'leap of faith', make no mistake about it.That you choose to view it otherwise speaks volumes about your intellect, if not your honesty.
The Church will endure, as it has endured idiots and tyrants and persecution for a thousand years or more.
Do I comment here as a Catholic? No. A believer? Well, I'm not at all sure, but at least I'm an honest man and perhaps if there's a heaven and a merciful God, that will be enough.
You, on the other hand...I pity your bombastic, narrow, closed-minded view of mysteries and wonders you're not even aware of.

KG said...

Correction--of course you can't have a view of something you're not aware of. I meant to write "only dimly aware of".

Canterbury Atheists said...

Cripes, I’ve come back from the pub, and need to write something concise!

MZLA: Where do I begin with your ‘random assumptions’ , your crude attempts to ‘play the ball rather than the man’. Mate, I lead a normal childhood, and wasn’t bitten by a theist at an early age. I wasn’t subject to indoctrination, like you. If you wish to address the arguments I present kindly do so on some intellectual basis, rather than attempting in a childlike fashion, character assassination, in attempt to win friends.

Your line is infantile and don't call me your son creep - it's offensive considering my father is dead.

The trite line about Sir Ed – embarrassing (and I’m drunk!)

BORDER COLLIE: My name is Paul. Generally it is a given, bearing in mind my name is of biblical origins, Paul is a he, but clearly you are into re-writing history and even disciples are not exempt sex-changes.

LM: Deductive reasoning? Again, you join the boot-boys who can’t address the issues, and rather indulge in ‘a kickin’. You know, I’m more complex than that ‘throw away comment’.

KG; You tell the grand sceptic I’m afraid of “ghosts under the bed” . For your enlightenment Atheists like me, don’t believe in holy-ghosts, unicorns, talking snakes, giant men – all that stuff believers in the Bible are into. Your accusations I am not honest, I take as a personal affront – on what basis do base your comments as to my lack of honesty CR? Are you saying I’m lying when I say openly, I disagree in a system of fascist dictatorship that exists in the Catholic Church? That I disagree with the earth being created in six days, and merely say so, just a smoke-screen for some psychological reasons? Which of my positions am I being dishonest on CA , since you seem able to judge and pillory me from afar? (inquisition anyone?)

Between you lot, this has to be an intellectual low-point.

Attack the issues and not me – it’s pathetic.

Good-Night and may your nameless God bless.


ZenTiger said...

Here's Paul's post for those that haven't had a chance to click the link:

We often see criticism leveled against businesses as being ‘an enemy of society’.

But rarely do we see businesses called ‘the enemy of democracy’ & when we do, the focus is often on multi-nationals.

Westerners are quick to criticise regimes such as Cuba, which inter-weave government & business, and over-look what is going on in their own backyards.

The very foundation of modern secular world is that broad term we call democracy.

That’s people, getting to have a say about their future – not solely politicians and business leaders.

Have you ever stopped to think, that the political system we embrace is the antithesis of that which operates in the dominant businesses operating in the world?

It’s not just the Middle-East where corporations repress freedom.

To properly analyze what this, we need to take a look at the political structures of the major Corporations to see how they operate, and then reflect on the compatibility with the freedoms we enjoy living in a secular democracy (cut and pasted off The BBC’s page on Business, for the benefit of the free marketers, who always question my sources)

MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION: the hierarchical nature of Corporations sets it apart from other small businesses. It is a pyramid with the CEO at the top, followed by executives, who lord it over the workers. (Shareholders, not workers, have the right to elect a new board of directors, and votes are given on the basis of how much money you put in. All major decisions rest with the CEO and the board. They often funnel their profits around the world, avoiding taxes and exploiting slave labour.)

SMALL BUSINESS: Today there are significant differences in the structures and organisation of small business and big business. Generally, in a small business the business owner runs the business and members don't have an automatic right to vote on how the business is run.

Multi-National Corporations and Small Businesses are the two dominant businesses on this planet, and which one of the two, operates on a democratic basis? The short answer is, neither.

Were, ‘brownie points’ to be issued for ‘democratic traits’ the Small Businesses, would secure more, but both businesses are variants of what we know as dictatorships, one on a macro level, one on a micro-level.

The system the Multi-national functions under bears a striking resemblance to European fascist regimes of the 1930’s , except I guess you could argue, those historic dictators first came to power via the democratic system, voted for by the people not a small cliché
[perhaps he means clique - Zen] of clergy.

The irony here is, despite running a totalitarian regime, The Multi-National relies on ‘freedom to do business’ for its very existence, along with complaisant followers (workers), who don’t have the fortitude, or are too scared to question ‘the system’.

For example evidently New Zealand’s workers are happy with edicts to mine the land, farm, fish, manufacture etc.

The reason of course, no garden-variety worker would come out and say openly “I think my company should pay people in Africa to work for them, even if they do no work to redress social issues” at local branch level is - no one would listen anyway!

Even if 99% of workers for a multi-national company believed supporting 900% pay rises in Africa, was the correct action to take given the circumstances – those in the the corridors of power, could or would ignore the will of the people.

Or you could read my reply here: Freedom of Religion

ZenTiger said...

Paul, you expect people to be polite, and yet you call mzala a "creep".

Is it that he said something that you took as offensive?

You need to look at your own posts and comments to see that your subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) insults are calculated to inflame.

You make sweeping assumptions and then ascribe them to all Catholics (not all people take the entire bible literally, yet you have claimed they do several times).

You cannot put Santa Claus in the same category as God, and to continue to do so is tiresome as well as insulting.

Can you not see that?

Greg said...

So you don't disagree Pol Pot was an atheist then? Or that you have a hang up about "pure atheism" [as seen on TV], cleansed of error, plunked in a clean double breasted suit and sipping a GnT at Horse of the Year ?
Seems to me you only embrace sweet smelling Anglophillic atheism, just like grandpa used to bake.

As your blog isn't called the Canterbury Humanist, what are you foremost? A humanist who's an atheist or an atheist who's a humanist. Or do I assume too much, are you not a humanist?
If you're firstly an atheist then you should embrace the rich variety of atheist expression. Not just the ones with plums.

KG said...

"Seems to me you only embrace sweet smelling Anglophillic atheism, just like grandpa used to bake."
LOL! Beautiful, Border Collie!

KG said...

"Attack the issues and not me – it’s pathetic."
What's pathetic is that you have a history of attacking and insulting the followers of religion yet when the positions are reversed you cry "foul".
See what I meant about a lack of honesty?
I believe atheism is a faith. And I also believe that people who follow it are absolutely fair game for attack and ridicule when they claim certainty for that which by it's very nature can never be certain.
I used to be an atheist in my arrogant youth, but in the words of Bob Dylan: 'ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now'.
In other words, CA, I'm mature enough to realise that there are mysteries and wonders we simply don't understand.
Better to be a seeker than live in the comfort of idiot 'intellectual' certainty....

Canterbury Atheists said...

ZEN: I find the term ‘son’, condescending and insulting, considering my father is dead. You might not, but I do. If it’s personal insults your fellow correspondents wishes to dish out, and that’s all he does in his reply is insult me, then he’s fair game.

The nature of my father’s death, solidified my atheism and belief there is no God.

It also began my involvement in raising-funds for medical research.

Hey Zen mate, like you one day I found-out Father Christmas wasn’t true, around 8 or 9 if memory serves me.

I have never believed in God, but am open minded to believe there is life somewhere out there - may be at an advanced level we would consider it to be God-like.

But God in a theist sense - no way!

And if you don’t believe in The Bible, what do you believe in?!

The Readers Digest Version (Bible Lite) as opposed to King James?

No talking snakes, people living in whales – just the positive reinforcement stuff?

BC: In the words of Frank Zappa ‘You are what you is’. I think for myself, my four legged friend, I’m not scared of things under the bed, the dark, nor the devil. I am what I am, and speak for no one but Paul. I knell to no Gods, or their earthy emissaries.

CR: If atheism is a faith, then baldness is a hair colour.

If you want to fight for freedom, them you picked the wrong team mate.

You rally against Islam on your blog, yet ignore the excess’s of your own religion.

By the way isn’t that the Dylan song with the line “Flung down by corpse evangelists”? It’s a great atheist line, pleased you took time to highlight the song.

See ya troops.


KG said...

"You rally against Islam on your blog, yet ignore the excess’s of your own religion."
You really are an idiot. The day Catholics and Presbyterians etc strap explosives to their children and send them to blow up Jews and other "non-believers", the day those religions begin sawing the heads from the necks of innocent people, the day they stone women to death and drive schoolgirls back into burning buildings, the day they rape and murder schoolchildren, all in the name of their religion....
Is the day I'll rail against Catholicism and Presbyterianism, Buddhism and Hinduism.
And by the way; I'm not your 'mate'--I'm fussy about the company I keep and the people I regard as friends.

mzala said...

What's the point of leveling insults at you when it is attention you seek, Paul. It comes out very strong in your posts. I

ZenTiger said...

Paul. I can infer several propositions in your recent comments:

1. God doesn't exist because Santa Claus doesn't exist.

2. Santa Claus is fictional. Some people think God is fictional, therefore believing in God is the same as believing in Santa.

3. God doesn't exist because my father died according to the laws of nature.

4. My concept of God differs from other people's concept of God. Therefore other people's concept of God are wrong, and God doesn't exist.

5. All things in the bible have to be taken literally. If all things are taken literally, they are impossible based on our current knowledge. Therefore the bible cannot be believed. It is also a given that our current knowledge on the content of the bible cannot be extended in any way (just as a scientist infamously said at the end of the 19th century that all that could be discovered in physics was now known).

You also made several assertions in your post relating to the superiority of democracy for all institutions etc, which I have responded to in the above comments and in a seperate post.

I'll refute the above points in due course, unless you want to retract or clarify any of these points first?

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.