OK so it’s been a while since I blogged last! I could say I’ve been busy, but I’d be lying 
Just be thankful you’re not my diary – I recently started writing in that again after nearly 6 months! I have to write a journal for that Creative Writing class I was trying to get into in my last post, so I thought I’d start writing to Bessie again. Yes. I named my diary. I felt weird writing to a faceless object; this way it’s more like I’m writing letters to a friend. I started the diary when I was about 14 and have filled several exercise books in the last four years. Watching Dawson’s Creek the other day (a whole other blog entry!) I remembered that Bessie is actually after Joey’s older sister for some reason that made sense when I was 14, but I can’t for the life of me remember now!
/digression
My friend Holly has been bugging me to post a new blog for a few days now, and while the initial idea that it would be about a specimen of the animal kingdom that we have dubbed Sleeve-Stalker, I watched a documentary tonight that got me a bit riled up and in the blogging mood (but I promise I will blog about the sleeve-stalker soon!). The documentary was called ‘The Life of Brian’, which I thought was quite funny considering the subject matter: One Brian Tamaki, Bishop of the Destiny Church here in New Zealand. The Destiny Church (for any readers not from New Zealand, or NZers who have been living under a rock for the last 5 years) is a fundamentalist Christian church, which is a far from common branch in New Zealand. We’re not a religious kinda place as a whole; according to the last census (in 2006), 32.2% of us ticked the ‘no religion’ box, and only 52.9% professed adherence to any branch of Christianity (the religion question is not compulsory in the NZ census, so I don’t know if the ‘no answer’ people have automatically been thrown into the ‘no religion’ category, or been left out all together, but these are still fairly significant stats). Compare this to say, the U.S., where according to a 2007 survey of over 35,000 Americans, only 16% did not consider themselves affiliated to any religion, and a huge 26% labeled themselves part of the Evangelical Protestant Church (like Destiny), the largest branch of Christianity there.
Brian Tamaki is one of the greasiest people I have ever seen. In the literal sense, there’s the awful hairdo, and then there’s the slimy, smug, ‘I’m right and you’re wrong, we have the TRUTH’ aura he has. He has a church, with a nationwide congregation of 7,000, which, I will admit, has done some good work helping people to get off the booze, and get involved with their family, etc. What I object to, is the fact that, while he and his church are helping these people, they’re also indoctrinating them with their own beliefs. They’re catching people, many of whom are at an extremely low ebb in their lives, and basically telling them ‘the only way you can be a truly good person is to follow our interpretation of the bible’. Several things about this annoy me. The main one is the perception that one can only be a good, moral person if they are a Christian. My own mother once told me I’d make a good Christian. Just because I’m a nice, helpful, thoughtful person, who cares about others and the community and the world as a whole. Because I don’t drink a lot, or smoke, or do drugs. I have to say it made me a little angry! But that’s another digression. Maybe it’s not nice to suspect another agenda, but is helping people the ONLY reason religious aid organisations help them? There’s not even the slightest intention of even casually dropping Jesus into the conversation? That’s not even my biggest quarrel with the Destiny Church. The New Testament I can handle. The bit that tells you to be Jesus-like, and not judge, and to help people in need. Even though I don’t believe in God, or that Jesus was a miracle-worker, let alone the son of God, I can deal with a book that teaches you how to treat people well. The Baby-Sitters’ Club did a grand job of that for me growing up The Old Testament bothers me a LOT more. The fact that people truly believe some of that stuff makes me think that there’s maybe something a little bit odd going on. That stuff was written down over 2000 years ago for a start, who’s to say that somebody wasn’t making it up to get their own agenda across? It’s all about punishing sins and oppressing women and minorities. There are so many bits in it that are ignored these days, even by Bishop Tamaki and his ilk – I bet they don’t keep slaves, or refrain from touching their female relatives while they’re menstruating (the female relatives, not Brian Tamaki ), but mention the GLBTs and it’s Sodom this and Gomorrah that. Who decides what’s still relevant? These delightful people marched on parliament 3 or 4 years ago to protest the Civil Union Bill (a Bill that gives gay people the right to the same privileges as a married couple does), claiming ‘Enough is Enough’, claiming that gay marriage would cause the downfall of society and threaten the sanctity of their straight (and obviously oh-so-strong) marriages. Personally I would rather grow up in a loving, accepting family unit (whether straight or gay) that an exclusively straight one that was going to force their fundamentalist, discriminatory beliefs on me. They also protested the passage of a bill that forbade parents to physically discipline their children (you know, coz hitting your kids teaches them respect. Why? Errr ….coz the bible says so – ‘Spare the rod..’ and all that). Regardless of the good work that they do helping people out of dire circumstances, their teachings are not great. They’re teaching people that morality and irreligiouness are mutually exclusive, that a book written before a lot of things in today’s world were known or even possible has the authority and relevance to instruct people how to live in the world today, and that their small minority of fundamentalists has the right to tell the rest of the country that the way we live and believe is absolutely wrong. Not that they just disagree with us, but that we’re WRONG. That they have the right to tell us what should be allowed and what shouldn’t, regardless of scientific knowledge and sociological, psychological, biological and physical fact. It makes me mad! Be bigoted on your own time, Bishop Tamaki!
OK it’s over now! Incidentally, and totally unrelatedly, word of the day is ‘natsukashii’. It’s Japanese, and it means (roughly; evidently it’s quite hard to explain in English coz there’s no real equivalent) feeling happy because you’re sad because you’re feeling nostalgic. (If you have knowledge of Japanese, correct me if I’m wrong. I know 3 other Japanese words, and two of them are sushi and sashimi )
This was an impressively long blog! :O
Haha I still think I beat you with the journal writings, I am much much rantier than “several” books. Try close to 20! Since 3rd form. I never named mine though, that would have felt silly. Nor is much in mine particularly private, just so weird that it ought to never be inflicted upon anybody else!
I’m awaiting the Sleeve-Stalker post with…not a lot of patience, lmao! Of course you will have to post a photo of your costume so people are able to see the sleeve that started it all!
As for Brian Tamaki making you riled up, I can definitely see why, he pisses me off too, but Now I think I’ve sort of got to the stage where he (and people like him, religious fundamentalists in general) don’t bother me as much as they used to.
They really do have as much right as we do to live their lives the way they want to. Nobody is ever going to agree with everybody, and I think the people who send them hate mail (and I mean hateful messages and threats, not just messages that state that they disagree for XYZ reasons) are in the wrong. Nobody deserves to have that inflicted upon them.
HOWEVER. Just before you start thinking I’ve turned all insipid and given up on having an opinion. I DO disagree with 90% of what they believe and teach. I suppose not believing the Bible would have that effect! I guess an example of this is that “Absolute Abstinence” program they have running. At a basic level, there is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing not to drink, smoke or have sex before marriage. In fact in some ways those decisions may be rather good ones. It’s the reasoning behind the decisions which is somewhat suspect. If someone chooses that they don’t want to have sex before marriage, it should be a personal choice, which they make because the think, I don’t know, that the only person they only ever want to share that part of themselves with is the person they intend to spend the rest of their life with. Fair enough.
But when you terrify young people into making these decisions by telling them “You must do this/not do this, otherwise you will got to Hell forever when you die.”, that’s a little extreme, and could lead to massive guilt and fear if they ever wavered from what they were told they HAVE to do.
As for that American survey that said X number of people identified as a particular religion; obviously it wasn’t the whole population of the US, so I’d be interested to see WHO they surveyed. Were they totally random people, from all over the country, or were they people form just a participating states? The reason this strikes me is because certain parts of America (such as the Bible Belt), clearly have a higher concentration of “religious people” than others, so obviously that would skew the results.
I also get annoyed when people from a group like Destiny think that their right to “live their religion” also entitles them to hurl abuse at people whose lifestyles they disagree with. I read somewhere that Brian Tamaki refuses to refer to Georgina Beyer as a woman, and instead called her “He”. Presumably to her face. I think that’s too far, although, luckily for her, she has probably developed a thick enough skin to deal with that type of thing.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s not the beliefs I so much object to, it’s the way in which they’re foisted onto other people, who clearly do not agree with them, in a manner intended to make them feel like they are doing something wrong.
As for Destiny Church helping former gang members get back on the right side of the law and into productive work and healthy family lives, yes, that’s definitely good. Obviously they’re much better off there than dead or in prison, and I don’t object to that as much as I feel like I should. Like I already said to you though, obviously Destiny Church isn’t the only way to help people out of a harmful lifestyle, but it is ONE way, and it’s better than nothing.
LMAO at your mother telling you you’d make a Christian! I can see what she was thinking, but I think she meant it as a joke! Obviously there’s more to Christianity than just the way someone behaves and treats other people; just like there’s more to “worldliness” than constant sin and debauchery.
As for the “Enough is Enough” march, I was kind of surprised what when I was in the film last year, most people knew they were the intended “targets” of it, but didn’t take it very seriously at all (aside from the one woman who was physically assaulted by one of the protesters; she took THAT rather seriously, even though the police didn’t!). I think they knew that most of NZ was much more liberal and that they were pretty safe.
Wow. This was a monstrous comment. Maybe I’ll copy and paste it into a blog of my own!
Your blog: 1233 words
My comment: 898 words
Damn! So close!
First of all, comparing the Bible to the Babysitter’s Club books = WIN. I’d say the same about most of my favourite books growing up.
I had the same thought about the fact that they have a positive impact on alcoholism etc. – I can easily imagine people getting drawn in for benefits like that and then sort of accepting the beliefs along with it. I also had the same thought about greasiness. He seemed very open and sincere in the way he spoke, but he still gives off a self-righteous vibe somehow. I’m not sure how far to trust my intuitions about that kind of thing though.
Something else I thought was odd in the doco – for someone who claimed he hadn’t before intended to run for PM, he (and the guy with him) had obviously done a lot of thinking about running the country! I hope he does run in this election – maybe getting absolutely crushed would send him a sign that there is no God paving his way to leadership. Or maybe a sign that voters are heathen sinners who don’t know what’s best for themselves…
My blog about this = work-in-progress.
Dawson Creek oh the memories . I never liked Joey and Pacey as a couple . On to more important things Tamaki is certifiable enough said . Don’t get me started on the outlawing of smacking and other such issues .
Jenny: You’d say what about your favourite books growing up? You’d compare them to the Babysitter’s Club, or to the Bible? Or say that they served as a moral guide?
Luke: Ok, now I have to ask, lol, do you support the outlawing of smacking, or oppose it?
I oppose the outlawing of smacking on the grounds that the people who beat there children will do so regardless of the fact that it is illegal to discipline(SP?) there kids .
But the law means that it’s easier to prosecute people like that woman who beat her son with a riding crop and got off because it was deemed ‘reasonable force’. Outlawing smacking means that if somebody is seen smacking their kid in public, police can investigate. Sure, a lot of the time this will come to nothing, as the police are allowed to use their discretion as to whether the parent/guardian should be prosecuted. But if just one kid is found to be being physically abused as a result of a report of a ‘light smack with an open hand’ in public, and that kid is subsequently removed from the environment and the perpetrator is punished, then isn’t the law worth it? I don’t think anybody has the right to hit a child, not when assaulting another adult is illegal, and especially since there are other, more effective ways of disciplining children. A lot of the protestors against the repeal of section 59 use the bible as their excuse, and/or claim that they have the right to hit their child because their child is THEIRS (I’ve heard this sentiment many times on talkback radio, and frankly, it frightens me). ‘A light smack as part of good parental discipline’ doesn’t make any sense to me. Violence in any form is not good.
Luke: In some ways, that’s exactly right. I don’t think banning smacking will stop child abuse anymore than banning driving with a blood alcohol level higher than *whatever it is, I don’t drive, so I don’t know* will stop people dying in DUI accidents, but it will help, which I why I support the ban.
I think it’s also important to realise that banning smacking is not the same as banning discipline. If a parent only EVER smacks their children to discipline them I think there’s something rather wrong within their relationship, and that parent ought to reconsider their approach before their child grows up into a teenager, who is an adult in the eyes of the law, and before smacking is viewed as assault!
Brooke: I didn’t hear about that woman! That’s insane! I guess a potential loophole with this law is the fact that individual police officers are allowed to use their discretion to decide whether a case warrants an investigation or not. Surely different officers would have a different definition over what constitutes “reasonable”, especially if they, for whatever reason, supported smacking as a form of discipline themselves. :/
As for the “my child belongs to me” argument; that’s ridiculous on so many levels. Even if your child DID belong to you, that still doesn’t give you the right to do whatever you like with/to it! You’re not allowed to hit animals to “discipline” them (and I think it’s fair enough to say that a pet DOES belong to its owner, moreso than a child belongs to its parent) and you’re not allowed to use your car (or tractor or bicycle or whatever) to do whatever you like either! Bottom line, even if something is a possession, there are still rules for acceptable use and treatment of them!
It also strikes me that “smacking” is a euphemism. If people were forced to use the word “hitting” every time they referred to this act, I wonder whether those in favour of it would feel more guilt and hesitance about what they were doing. The same goes for “spanking”, although admittedly not so much here in NZ, since that tends to be viewed as a sexual act and something totally different.
Right. Closing this widow now. Before I get started on those drunk people we saw signing that petition at Sparks! o.O
^ Haha! “It strikes me…”. Unintentional pun WIN!
Holly: The woman with the riding crop was before the repeal of section 59, when the law said that you were allowed to use ‘reasonable force’ in the discipline of a child. The problem with that law is that, as you said, there were different interpretations of what ‘reasonable force’ was. So they’ve taken away the ‘reasonable force’ thing. Which makes sense, because reasonable force is kind of an oxymoron to me!
Also, lol at the unintentional pun!
It is a lot harder to prove who abused a child then it is to prove that a child has been abused . To my knowledge a family member who was abused as a child ( not me ) wasn’t smacked in public . Time will tell but IMO your more likely to end up with witch hunts that wastes police resources .
Myself I couldn’t care less about the bible . While there choice of wording leaves some what to be desired I think those who state that its “their ” children are getting is the fact that they and not the government are responsible for raising there kids . Mind you I prefer internet forums to talk back radio . Of course the government is happy to tell people how to do there jobs while leaving others with all the responsibility.
If your logic concerning reasonable force was applied elsewhere no one would be able to defend themselves in the event they were attacked . Of course reasonable force is subjective but its an imperfect world and will remain so . I disagree with your last sentence I tend to lean more towards the idea that people should be able to use violence to defend there property’s .
Governments never get rid of pointless laws they only ever create more of them . In this case outlawing smacking has failed to address what I regard the fundamental issue to be which is that some people shouldn’t have kids in the first place . IMO to many people have kids because society expects them to do so rather then out of some genuine desire .
I have just read Holly comment . The comparison to DUI isnt a bad one expect for the fact that when kids fall afoul of the rules they end up before there parents or the headmaster . When adults break the law they (hopefully !) end up dealing with law enforcement . For some parents smacking is a part of discipling there children so there is less chance they fall a foul of the law when they grow up .
There is also no reasonable force involved with DUI but that is another angle to the point made by Holly .
: Grabs helmet and bunkers down :
Brooke: Oh oh, yeah that does make sense, although I don’t think “reasonable force” is always an oxymoron. I think it comes down to what is meant by reasonable. Whether it means that the use of the force itself was a reasonable and rational response to a situation (Eg. If someone is coming after you with a baseball bat, it’s obvious you’re going to need to do something fairly forceful in order to defend yourself, and this course of action is therefore appropriate), OR whether it means that the amount of force exerted is reasonable for the situation, or whether it is excessive (such as killing an ant with a sledgehammer). Hold on…are they the same thing…I’m confused now…!?
Luke: Exactly. The Kahui twins (I’m assuming you’re a New Zealander, sorry if you’re not, type them into Google!) are a prime example. Obviously somebody was responsible for their deaths, but there’s not enough evidence to convict anyone! It’s also true that the vast majority of child abuse victims aren’t abused in public; for the simple reason that the abuser/s know what they’re doing is wrong, and often to go to great lengths to conceal the abuse.
I also see what you mean about what the parents meant by the children be “theirs”, that also makes sense, and yes, the parents SHOULD be responsible for raising their children.
As for my DUI comparison, I know reasonable force is not involved there, all I was doing was using it as another example to demonstrate that just because something is illegal (and stupid) doesn’t mean people will stop doing it.
I think the main thing that annoys me about parents who use smacking as (their main form of) punishment is that I suspect many of them do it because “It was done to me, and I turned out all right.” as opposed to have actually sat down with their partner, thought about how they’re going to raise their child, and then tried different discipline methods to find the most effective, rather than just going down the “You disobey. You get a smack” road by default, because it’s what they know.
Yes, some kids might respond well to this, but they might also respond equally well, or better, to something else.
Admittedly I’m only 20 and I’m not a parent, so my opinion doesn’t come from personal experience.
Actually. No. Scratch that. It kind of does. I work in a primary school (and, beginning very shortly, a drama school) with kids from 5 to 12 years old, some of whom have quite challenging behaviour issues. Obviously we’re not allowed to hit the children in our care, so we’re forced to think of other ways of managing their behaviour, and we keep trying stuff until we find something that works.
Holly I’m a kiwi . My first thought upon hearing how quickly the Jury threw out the case against Chris Kahui was that the police had bowed to public pressure rather then build a solid case based on the evidence available . Fair point about smacking being the main form of punishment . My impression has always been that smacking is used as a last resort.
Don’t worry I’m 23 and don’t have any parenting experience .