A Letter to Murray McCully


I expect a form letter asnwer.

 

Mr.McCully,

I understand that you’re voted in for your opinions and preferences, but I can’t let it pass without comment that you changed your vote to change your support of Marriage Equality to be opposed to it.

As the National MP in the ECB you’ve secured my vote for the previous elections. Mostly because you’re inoffensive and are in a party that by and large suits my own thinking. By and large.

Being the intelligent, well travelled, and well rounded man that you are I can’t begin to understand how you can vote against something that I’ve enjoyed for coming up to 25 years this year, that of being married.

I can’t begin to understand how you could support it one day and be against it the next. You’re now one of only 4 people who’ve been swayed, cajoled, or harangued into taking a contrary position to one which you came to on your own.

I’d lay Dollars to Cents that you’ve been lobbied by the religious element in this. Modern marriage is a construct of religion, religion that does all it can to deny minorities the status that they themselves confer upon themselves.

The world will not end, churches will not crumble, men will not start eyeing me up lustily in the streets, people will go about their lives. Traditional marriage, and denial of it to all people, is about religious dogma. Traditional Marriage isn’t for life, as the number of divorces will attest. Marriage isn’t for everyone, else everyone would be married.

At a time when Atheism or non-religion becomes more prevalent and religious dogma and teaching become less relevant you find yourself in a position where you are in danger of becoming a dinosaur of a past age.

Mr. MCully I ask you, if you could travel back in time would you yourself would have voted for women’s suffrage? And whilst not comparable in moving society forward, I ask you why you would vote against Marriage Equality, something that clearly brings equity to everyone?

I’d ask that you do me the service of not sending me a stock/form reply, because that’s just avoidance, and my one vote might not make a difference, but then again it might.

Philip Walter

Faith, Same sex marriage, and Children.


New Zealand is on track to remove barriers to same sex marriages. We have Civil Union legislation, but this is a sort of half-way house thing. Removing an arbitrary sex based barrier to marriage is of it’s time.

However those of the faith and the religiosity have got their collective underpants all bunched and they’re going to come out swinging on a number of ‘points’.

And they are all nonsense. And they are all nonsense because there is not one logical argument that could be put forward that would or could justify their position. Not a one.

“Marriage is between a man and women” Since when? Since a when the ‘church’ decided to Ponce up some ceremony and add some bells and whistles is a when. The church is big on dogma and protocol. But I can’t find any evidence that before the church decided to dress up a ceremony that marriage wasn’t a thing. I can’t find any evidence that before the church decided to restrict it’s ‘blessing’ that all marriages were between men and women.

In different ancient cultures, marriage was more of a business arrangement, joining families together for mutual benefit. Under Roman law in the first centuries of the Common Era, there were proper opportunities for divorce and the dissolution of a marital union for both parties. However, as the Christian church grew, marriage became more ecclesiastically governed; the church dictated the rules of marriage.

Historically then a marriage was a means to ensure a continuance. That is all. If you had not confirmed or announced partner then you had no estate to pass. Marriage brought with it some assurances.The churches brought with it dogma, and protocol and restriction.

Same-sex marriage is rejected as un-Christian and immoral on the basis of a myopic reading of a very few Biblical texts. And the texts in question are scant indeed.

The most referenced texts are Genesis 19; the holiness codes of Leviticus 17-26, and in the New Testament, Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians 6:9 and his Letter to the Romans 1:26-27.

Not only does one have to “hunt” for references to same-sex practices, but there are no gospel texts that treat the matter.

There is nothing attributed to Jesus of Nazareth that has anything to do with same-sex orientation. According to the gospels, Jesus never commented on same-sex practices; that fact certainly bears repeating to anyone criticizing the gay community on Christian grounds.

Largely, same-sex practice is a topic of little interest to the Biblical authors.

It beggars belief that you would refer to an ancient book of myth and stories to cherry pick what your faith is. Sure the Bible might say “husband” and “wife” but it doesn’t as far as I know define the gender of either in terms of what constitutes a “marriage”.

The restriction or constriction is therefore one made up by the church and religion as a method of control.

Children

In New Zealand we have out share of conservative doom-sayers

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said he was planning a “research-based” campaign on the advantages of heterosexual relationships and traditional family structures.

 ”I’m keen to be part of a campaign to get out there on this issue. It would look intelligently at the differences between homosexual parenting and a Mum and a Dad. Does gender matter, does role-modelling matter?

I don’t mind having it on record that the idea of two men having responsibility for a child is a little beyond me. I couldn’t do it. I assisted with a more maternal and capable mother in raising our children from birth. But I am talking about baby children, not toddlers, or schoolers, or teens.  I don’t have the same doubt about females raising children. Call me a bigot if you like, but I have first hand experience of a woman raising our child and she did a great job. I’d hire her again :-)

I have no idea what feeling or compulsions you have a person in relation to children and your level of altruism in wanting to look after, nurture and care for a child. I just don’t.

I have my understanding. I have an idea of what is acceptable and required from my experience, and I have the insight from a number of people who I’ve associated with who’ve raised children. I have experience.

Just because I don’t think I could does not mean I don’t think you should. It might make you shudder, cringe and gasp. It doesn’t mean that you can’t raise a child as a parent.  To have any other position on this indicates you live your life in a cave. There are lots of children raised by single parents. There are heaps raised by same sex parents, mostly female I’d wager.

The world did not stop when Elton John and David Furness adopted a child. Money makes it better or acceptable? Get a grip.

The one where schools drop Bible class as interest falls


This is a story that isn’t quite like what it seems like Schools drop Bible as interest falls – National – NZ Herald News.

In the article it says

“Browns Bay principal Roger Harnett said parents had been withdrawing their children from the Churches Education Commission programme.

Last year, about 50 students dropped out from a roll of 500, but Mr Harnett said complaints increased when students saw their friends choosing to opt out and persuaded their own parents to let them drop the class too.

This year, the board of trustees decided to cancel the programme because they were having a problem catering for the increasing number of students withdrawing. It made the decision after a review of all non-curriculum activities.”

Which says that the school can’t resource correctly for children not being taught from the book of the sky god, not that teaching from the book of the sky god is wrong, inappropriate or outdated thinking, but that having to find a teacher or activities to replace indoctrination means that they have to come up with some alternative thing. They’d still be doing the indoctrination if less parents were exercising their choice, this is a decision forced on the school by the parents and not some brave decision by the school to change their thinking and delivery of education.

There’s nothing wrong with fables and lessons on doing the right thing, but you don’t have to have specific religiosity to do that, you don’t need a book of a mystical being to be able to instill a moral compass, and to affirm that things like, say, killing someone, is wrong, or that theft isn’t really what you do in a civilised society.

Couple of amusing things in the story

“Robin Palmer, of Browns Bay Presbyterian Church, was concerned that children whose schools did not use the Bible in Schools programme would be at a disadvantage. “We regard the programme as adding value to the school, and it’s been around for many years.”

So that makes it o.k., appropriate, correct, and relevant? no!, and  I fail to see how it disadvantages people. I’d hate to think what would happen if the school expanded the religious lessons to include the Koran, or teaching from Buddhism. Actually you know what, I was just being an egg.

The other quote I like is this one

“Parents have ample opportunity to teach children about the Bible outside school time”

And I agree.  Bible isn’t for school. Science is for school, Maths and English are for school. Instilling the values of society, the right and wrong, that’s for parents, and in my house the Bible wasn’t part of that.

As I get older I get different – #3


The one thing that I learned from Twitter is that you have to talk about Religion, Politics, Finance and the weather.

And so Religion.  I don’t think it’s a secret that I’m Atheist. Dead set I am. But I don’t think that it’s something that I have to share in public, or in conversation, nor do I have to justify my position.

And I have  full respect for anyone that is “of the faith“, any faith and has the need to have a “God” that they worship. I do.

My parents raised me Church of England, which in an of itself is a breakaway church, which makes me smile. When I say “raised” I mean sent me to Sunday School. I don’t actually recall attending church on a regular basis at any time. I doubt that we did, despite my sketchy memory of my early childhood. I did R.I. at school, and had parts in the annual nativity at primary school. Fully grounded then in all aspects :0)

What I’m not comfortable with is bagging people of the faith. On a personal level. I’m happy to talk about the irrelevance, the inconsistency and stupidity of religious dogma, but I shy away from confrontation. It’s not that important. But also what I’m uncomfortable with is having a label, even if it’s “atheist”, as if having a label makes it more legitimate for scorn or derision.  I feel the same way about my stand on climate change, and my own belief that despite what you think I’m sure in my own way that it’s not man made,  and that because I have that belief I don’t enjoy being called a “Denier”, I don’t deny climate change, just that man did it.

I enjoy learning about the aforementioned inconsistencies in religious teaching to reaffirm that I’m not just a bit weird.  The more you read, and absorb logical and reasoned argument, the further you get away from a belief in a “supreme being”.

I wish I could pinpoint the day when I realised that I didn’t have to believe in a sky god and that it wasn’t going to end in tears. I know it was a long time ago, and that as I get older, and experience more things, and witness more pain, heartache, illness and death I realise that there in fact can’t be a caring God, and that confirmation bias just does’s cut it.