Twitter was abuzz yesterday after MSM reports that John Banks had made a statement about the basis of his Christian faith. The Herald reports:
Associate Education Minister John Banks says he believes the Genesis account of the start of life on Earth.According to the Bible, God made the world in six days, with Adam and Eve being his last act of creation.John Banks told Radio Rhema that he has no doubts the first chapters of Genesis are true.
Those who were mocking Banks for his revelation included MP's, among them Trevor Mallard and Mojo Mathers. Whatever happened to religious freedom? And there was a general overtone that Banks was going to use his position as Associate Education Minister to ram his beliefs down the throats of the children of New Zealand.
Except that he isn't, and has in fact specifically ruled that out; read on:
"That's what I believe, but I'm not going to impose my beliefs on other people, especially in this post-Christian society that we live in, especially in these lamentable times.''"There are reactionaries out there, humanists in particular, that overrun the bureaucracies in Wellington and state education.''
So apart from another opportunity to put the political boot into John Banks, what is the actual issue here? And are those who delight in accusing John Banks of bigotry actually no better than he is?
29 comments:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Ha!
"Whatever happened to religious freedom?"
Who says he's forbidden from believing that the world is 4000 years old and humans and dinosaurs lived together before the great flood? Why are you trying to suppress people's freedom to point out that Key's major ally has some very very odd views? Who can forget this btw:
"He's got a wife!"
This guy props up the government. Scary.
The issue is that John Banks cannot keep his religion out of politics ( because if he is deluded enuough to believe in the Creation Myth, then he will also believe in hell for himself), and from that then flows a deceit perpetrated on his voters.
ACT promoted itself as a classical liberal party: an important aspect of that is a liberal (traditional) and a humanist tradition? Thus, for example, in just two bills currently before Parliament, Wall's gay marriage, and Street's euthanasia, then those who voted for a classical liberal candidate could rightly expect him to support both of these, but John Banks is not a classical liberal, he's one of Craig's conservative, bigoted cavemen, and he will vote against both.
And so he has destroyed NZ's only viable classical liberal option. At the least he's guilty of false advertising, but I see it as outright treachery.
The only good that may come of it is more votes for the true classical liberal party, Libertarianz, but the net result is to hand 2014 to the Left. So there are certainly issues here. Yes we have religious freedom, but once again our democratic system will allow, in the most dishonest terms, an MP to force his Christian bigotry on what should be a free society, but is far from that.
No man in his right mind would believe that. 'Nuff said.
I imagine that many of us are a little worried that this yet another insight into the strangeness of Mr Banks (I don't need to run through his other oft-expressed views), a man with some responsibility, courtesy of Mr Key, for our education system.
He may not be about to force his beliefs on anyone else, but you can be sure that there are people who share them looking to start creationist charter schools, just as we've seen in the US and UK.
He was already the reason I didn't vote ACT at the last election, it's nice to have the correctness of that decision vindicated and it's kind of ironic that I didn't vote for Colin Craig for Mayor because I perceived him to be a nutbar...
Bella said...
No man in his right mind would believe that. 'Nuff said.
Riiggght.
There are many good reasons to believe God exisits and is the creator of everything, but you are free to ignore this. However, if you come up with a solution to the absurdity of atheism, please let us know.
Freedom of Religion doesn't mean you are automatically shielded from anyone suggesting your views are wrong or ludicrous. It means the state can't prevent you from practicing your chosen religion.
John Banks is absolutely free to practice his religion and hold his beliefs, just as others are free to ridicule him for these beliefs.
You got anything better than the argument from personal incredulity to back that up Ciaron?
Yep, but if it's an actual list you want I'll have to get back to you later.
Please note that I am not defending a literal interpretation of genesis. I have seen reasonable arguments for both interpretations and I am hence undecided.
John Banks is possessed of a lunatic belief, involving snakes, ribs, and utterly illogical scenarios. That he holds a key position in the John Key led National Government and has significant influence over the future of education in New Zealand makes a mockery of that Government and puts our chikldren's future at great risk.
And Keeping Stock asks,
"So, what's the issue?"
The issue, KS, is that there are very, very unsuitable people running the country. We are all at risk from the unhinged politicians that have conned their way into power. John Banks is but one of them.
Absolutely no surprise here to see Banks attacked, hard, by the Left - both "modern" and "classical" liberals - on this issue.
Mark Hubbard, Banks & Brash did not "destroy NZ's only viable classical liberal option." Your attempt to revise history would make you a worthy member of the Maori or Green Parties. ACT imploded when the split-personalities, nutcases and schizophrenic factions started feasting on each other. Arguably, Banks & Brash are the only reason ACT still exists at all in the Parliamentary context.
And no, Banks has not (single-handedly, anyway) handed 2014 to the Left. 2014 may well go to some coalition of Liarbore, the Watermelons, Leftertarianz, Apartheid and CommuniMana parties. But that won't be Banks'fault. If anything, it will be because John Key and National have cozied up to the forces of separatism to establish Apartheid in New Zealand. It will be the fault of New Zealanders who, instead of voting in favour of velvet-glove, soft-left tyranny via the National Party (supported by, potentially, ACT and the Conservatives), will vote for the hard left, which offers them ... cake! ... ignoring the problems besetting New Zealand which will (ultimately) lead to poverty, misery and societal breakdown. The New Zealand people will get the government we vote for, and ultimately, the government we deserve. Do we want liberty, of a sort, fashioned on a coalition of Conservative and "classical Liberal" values glued together by a malleable (some would say spineless) Key-led National? Or do we want to be free of liberty, to have all of the decisions made for us by our political masters via central committee? That is the decision each of us will need to make.
And James Stephenson, please advise why you object to the establishment of Charter Schools based on Christian teaching? Are you so afraid of children being taught Creation Science alongside Evolution that they might make up their own minds? There are plenty of Church-based schools around now (Kings, St Kentigern's, St Cuthberts, Diocesan, Kingsway and others in Auckland, Christ's in Chch, etc.). Do you equally object to the establishment of Maori immersion schools, where children are taught Maori culture, myths and (revised) history?
I don't propose to answer the other commenters on this thread. Those who believe Mr Banks is somehow "weird" because he has professed a belief in a religion, a system or an ideology which has millions of followers around the world, has been established for some 2000 years and on which the entire western world was based and has prospered. Unarguably, without the Judaeo-Christian ethic, the western world would be no different now than those African or Middle-Eastern hellholes that haven't progressed beyond the 7th century.
Do you mock Ashraf Choudhary for his following of a pedophile prophet and a 7th century death cult which calls for all non-believers to be killed or subjugated? Did you mock Nandor Tanczos for his religious beliefs? Helen Clark for her atheism? Nah, didn't think so. Hypocrites.
"Those who believe Mr Banks is somehow "weird"...
"somehow"???
"weird"???
Are you insane????
He's an utter loon,a crack-pot!
Adam and Eve! Give us a break. You and Banks are off the planet!
Gantt Guy
If millions of believers told you it was safe to jump off that 1000 metre cliff because God will save you, are you going to listen to them, or my lone voice saying 'I wouldn't do that if I were you'.
Truth has nothing to do with how many people believe in something. A fact can not be voted into a fiction. And I've just explained why a democracy has turned me into a slave of the tyranny of the majority.
And when I said Banks has destroyed the ACT party I meant he had done that in the only way it's possible to destroy a party: by striking down, utterly, it's underlying philosophy. I wasn't referring to your tactical party political numbers BS.
Thanks for the ad hominem, Krang. Proof you are incapable of a rational debate. Obviously a Greens voter.
@ Mark - 2.31pm - I think it could be fairly argued that Act was already stuffed well before John Banks came on the scene.
Very few Christians I know think that Genesis provides the literal truth behind the beginnings of our world. While I am able to accept that some people do believe that the Earth was created by God in less than a week (and only a few thousand years ago) I wouldn't want one of them in charge of our education system.
Given that Banks doesn't remember flying in a helicopter to one of New Zealand's most impressive mansions and has no idea who provided massive cheques to him after openly asking for them, it makes me even more convinced that the man shouldn't be allowed to set foot in the beehive.
Got a wee bit too much time on your hands Gantt? You seem to be inhabiting some sort of post modern relativistic universe where all views are equally valid and therefore can't be mocked. It's weird given how prepared you are to viciously attack anyone whose views are different to yours.
@Gantt - I have no objection to Christian groups setting up Charter Schools, based on Christian (ie the teachings ascribed to JC himself) principles, and I have no objection to children learning cultural myths as myths (I don't think that Maori kids are taught that the North Island was literally fished out of the sea are they?).
I do have an objection to myths and bogus circular arguments around them being taught as "science". It's not science it's quite simply bullshit.
You don't get to say "Evolution is just a theory" and I'm going to reject that bit of science, because my old book says something different. If you want to reject Evolution, you have to throw out all of Geology (there goes the *theory* of Plate Techtonics!), a lot of atomic physics, most of Biology, a fair chunk of Chemistry...that's the nature of science, it's a web of interlinked self-supporting knowledge.
Gah. Tectonics with an 'h'...muppet typing fingers.
Can anyone believe Edward the Confessor could say this about someone else?
"It's weird given how prepared you are to viciously attack anyone whose views are different to yours."
Crikey!
Ripeka one; Edward nil.
Well spoken Ripeka!
I don't attach people personally. That's for the right.
Speaking of which, been to the Police with those death threat allegations yet IV2? No? How irresponsible of you. A criminal matter so serious shouldn't be left to whining on a blog.
There's been a death threat allegation?
The police need to be notified immediately. Who, where and why. This could be a matter of life and death. Act now.
I've decided to ignore Edward the Confessor, having come to the conclusion he's Sludge's slightly less-retarded brothercousin. Making dozens (hundreds?) of comments without a single cogent point is a family trait, methinks. So, a nuisance best ignored. If Inv wants to allow this person to have continued posting privileges, it's Inv's webspace and his property.
Now, James, while I don't have any problem at all with creation being taught only to those children whose parents so desire it, and even then in the context of religious studies, I will point out that people far smarter than I (yes, there are one or two around, or so I've heard) have blown large holes in the evolution "science" which is taught to today's young and impressionable. Many many studies have been conducted and have concluded that today's school textbooks include items presented as "fact" which have been utterly and thoroughly disproved, some many years ago.
So, if you're going to insist on evolution being taught, especially if you insist on it being taught in a scientific context, then surely you must at least insist on up-to-date and accurate information being presented. Unless you move evolution into the "social sciences" area of the curriculum?
As for me, my daughter will receive the benefit of both theories of the start of the world, and will make up her own mind which she follows. When she has all of the facts and is of a sufficient age to make up her own mind, she can choose, like you, to believe man is descended from chimps. But she will be armed with all of the facts to enable her to make a reasoned decision on the topic.
Edward the Confessor at 5.20pm said :
"I don't attach people personally."
then
"How irresponsible of you.
A criminal matter so serious shouldn't be left to whining on a blog."
Oh, dear!
At least he didn't say them in the same breath.
The Gannt Guy is as sharp as a tack, aye! Working out that Edward the Confessor is really the cousin of Judge Holden. Wow! I like Gannt. His ideas are sweet, like those of Ripeka. This blog rocks!
Where's the personal attack? It's called pointing out the truth. To the right that is a personal attack, I suppose.
To see the right at work, look at Gantt's first paragraph above. He has no rebuttal so he ignores the argument and pushes the retard button. The rest of his screed is typical evidence free nonsense. Where are these so called slam dunk rebuttals of the theory of evolution? Note he can't provide them, he simply asserts they exist and therefore claims that teaching children nonsense about the earth being 4000 years old is acceptable. Hilarious if he wasn't actually serious.
Gantt Guy
Please look up ad hominem in the dictionary, because my reply to you was certainly not that.
Post a Comment