The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The terminal decline of Christianity in New Zealand > Comments

The terminal decline of Christianity in New Zealand : Comments

By Max Wallace, published 8/1/2014

The New Zealand Catholic noted that there was 'a stunning rise' in the number of people declaring 'no religion', a total of 1.635 million citizens out of a total population of 4.24 million.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
"Just why all taxpayers should continue to subsidise Christianity's failing mission in New Zealand (and by extension, Australia) through tax exemptions and grants is a question that is now thrown into relief."

Yes, indeed, secular states have no business supporting religion, Churches are simply private enterprises and should be treated like any other business.
The bad news is, that, as the threat of Christian theocracy recedes, liberal democracy is under increasing pressure from Islamisation.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 8:41:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, you seem to take joy from figures. Be wary, even when figures display a healthy bank balance they come up short in providing a source and ongoing foundation of joy of spirit, peace of mind and warmth of heart.

However, are they really that good? We are experiencing a social phenomenon where a mimetic desire in the social sphere is to be "free" - free to think, free to act, free to believe whatever I want to believe in, free to desire whatever the advertising industry throw at me. Whilst the pursuit of freedom is a universal good, interestingly it is exploited by the libertarian mentality of the old Left and Right to their own ends. The Left (if it feels good do it )and the Right, who are always keen to exploit commercially new frontiers of human "activity". The effect of this is working through our system and manifests in detachment from an understanding, or sense, of the greater good and in attachment to good feelings, that lack even a desire for understanding, about matters of the world and the spiritual realm.

The western liberal democracies rose from a Europe that was inspired, at its foundations, by the Christian faith that contained the call to love and service, and in that, carried the immutable and ever present hope for better things. What a gift for people whose physical existence is so harsh and miserable, and more so without the opportunity and means to change it.

Meanwhile, the Secularisation Thesis has remained as a point of discussion rather than a pointer of reality.

I cannot deny you your joy of numbers, but do remember, you and your fellow travelers are working against 2000 years of history with progression, regression, correction and more progression of Church with Her people. The promise to Abraham, and the Great Commission of Jesus have been fulfilled in terms of physical reach and the establishment of social foundations. It is our task to bring it to fulfillment in the company of the Risen Lord as opposed to ever failing social theory.

Cheers
Michael Byrne
Posted by boxgum, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:00:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' It is not in the public interest for New Zealand to subsidise Christianity's (and other religions') failing private projects. '

what a joker Max is. The secular education system is so failed that even huge numbers of unbelieving parents want their kids in private school. By paying fees they are indirectly helping all those sponging on the public system. Despite all the lies, the Government in Australia gives far less per student in the private system than the public zoo. Max claims belong to same ' Rationalist' cult however is silent about the billions wasted on the gw religion. I think these jokers also claim some ' sort ' of rationalism. If Max really believes that the church is going away he is sadly deceived. MAybe that is just what he is hoping. People just are not dumb enough to believe that the great design of this planet come from nothing. Only desperate scientist in need of more public money need to carry on that myth.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:07:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While the facts are in themselves indisputable, I find much of the triumphalism in this article mildly offensive.

Religion is fundamentally a lifestyle choice, which rationally therefore should not be subsidized by the State through tax breaks - I have absolutely no quarrel with that. But the fact remains that even these statistics show that more than 60% of the population is still prepared to declare their allegiance to a supreme being, which indicates that there is still a need for society as a whole to recognize their impact.

Removing tax favouritism from religious entities, simply because they are religious entities, should not in any way impact the piety of their followers, which is an entirely emotional, rather than financial response. Their charitable works would not be impacted in any way, which is entirely as it should be.

So, how should we as a society respond to the decline in religious belief? In my view, such observations as these are unhelpful:

"...[NZCN's] agenda is in tatters"

But that is their problem, surely? What's with the crowing?

Taking aim at people's beliefs on the basis that you personally consider them irrational is distinctly counterproductive. The steady decline in religious observance does not need any help from militant atheism. But a rational and consistent approach to the use of public money in the furtherance of religion does not require anything more than a rational and consistent approach to the use of public money. Full stop.

Attacking the beliefs themselves puts you in the same category as the religious evangelists, which takes the argument into entirely unnecessary dead-ends.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:13:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boxgum - you should at least get your facts correct. What is now called the "official" institutional church only came into existence 1700 years ago when the then multi-various early Christian movement was coopted by the Roman state and thus became a key and even dominant player in the Western drive to gain total power and control over everyone and everything.

Plus there was no "great commission". NO one who was alive during the lifetime of the living-breathing-feeling entirely JEWISH Spiritual Master Saint Jesus of Galilee ever heard Jesus say these words. Or that matter any of the words attributed to him in the "New" Testament. And NO one heard Jesus speak after his brutal murder - such was impossible!
Saint Jesus of Galilee was always and only a Jew, he was never ever in any sense a Christian, nor did he found the religion about him aka Christian-ISM as a power-and-control-seeking ideology. On the contary it was a bit of institutional propaganda created by the church "fathers" to justify their expansionist essentially power-and-control political motives. See for instance: http://www.dabase.org/up-5-1.htm

Meanwhile this essay provides a unique summation of the situation re the declining and now baneful lingering influence of institutional Christian-ISM, the decline of Christian-ism, and why the superior seemingly more "realistic" ideology of scientific materialism has inevitably replaced it.
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm
This essay describes how the usual dreadfully sane Christian religionist has been totally propagandized by the now world dominant dominant ideology of scientific materialism, even while continuing to mumble on about their mommy-daddy "creator"-God, the Bible and the long ago dead now completely mythological "Jesus".
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/nirvanasara/chapter1.html
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:25:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q.E.D.

>>Attacking the beliefs themselves puts you in the same category as the religious evangelists, which takes the argument into entirely unnecessary dead-ends.<<

Thanks Daffy for proving my point, most effectively.

>>Saint Jesus of Galilee was always and only a Jew, he was never ever in any sense a Christian, nor did he found the religion about him aka Christian-ISM as a power-and-control-seeking ideology.<<

Now, can we get back on topic?

Somehow, I doubt it very much.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:48:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How come New Zealanders are always leaving Oz behind? That they are rejecting the nonsense called 'religion' shows they are evolving at a faster rate than we are.

I mean, how come in 2014, educated 'intelligent' humans are still believing this anachronistic, 'Pie In The Sky' nonsense.

Even my dog doesn't believe in God or a heaven where dogs have wings and fly about howling hymns. He's not that foolish.

Of course, I have spoken to him about it all and he listens intently only passing wind now and again. "Killer," I say. You better listen hard. I mean there might be 75 bitches waiting up there to pleasure you!"

He sometimes licks his balls at this suggestion but I'm not sure just what he is thinking or whether a flea is troubling him.

Anyway, good on N.Z.! They don't toady to the U.S. either.

Australians, hang your heads and tug your forelocks in shame!
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 11:35:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion was and is still, the first law and order, going back as far as your minds can think. Do you think it was easy for the first law makers?....I wasn't. The time it took for us to get here...its been a good road of dis..and re..covered...and that's the problem.

Planet3
Posted by PLANET3, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 5:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"By focusing too much on (1) the accumulation of wealth (2) attempts to influence government (3) the pursuit of status and prestige and (4) risible attempts to rationalise all that, Christians have lost the plot. They are supposed to be about spiritual wealth and salvation, that is their raison d'etre, but it is one gig they don't want to personalise."

Claims like this are both divisive and -- in my view -- simply wrong. The vast majority of religious believers of any type are rational, intelligent, well-behaved, productive people. The violent and intolerant behaviour that is contributing -- slightly -- to the decline of religion is generally confined to a few fundamentalists. Far more important in the decline is increasing education levels and the free movement of information via the Internet.

Rejection of religion is not a 'gut reaction' to badly-behaved theists, but a logical position into which educated minds can reason themselves by examining the evidence. That's why the reversion rate from atheism to theism is so low. This claim suggests that mainstream Christians could reverse the flow simply by being 'nicer'; but no matter how nice they are, they can't alter the obvious fact that their religious belief is completely unjustified.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 9 January 2014 6:06:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'This claim suggests that mainstream Christians could reverse the flow simply by being 'nicer'; but no matter how nice they are, they can't alter the obvious fact that their religious belief is completely unjustified.'

actually Jon J it shows that people are deceieved into not reaching the conclusion that all human hearts are corrupt. Evidence is totally ignored.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 9 January 2014 9:16:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to be a bit of theme of yours, runner...

>>...actually Jon J it shows that people are deceieved into not reaching the conclusion that all human hearts are corrupt. Evidence is totally ignored.<<

The fact that there is corruption in the human heart, as you put it, is no more evidence of the existence of a supreme being than the fact that some people are actually nice to each other.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 9 January 2014 10:25:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner the other is a bigger myth, show me the evidence of your man written bible.
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 9 January 2014 12:44:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ojnab

'Runner the other is a bigger myth, show me the evidence of your man written bible. '

you along with others are strong evidence of it.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 9 January 2014 12:54:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I get "attacked" by Pericles for quite rightly criticizing Boxgum's untenable beliefs. Untenable because they just aint true. And yes Jesus was always and only a Jew and never ever in any sense a Christian.

True Wisdom begins by asking and really investigating at a profound depth-level, who am I (or what is the nature of Consciousness), and what do I really know about all of this beginning with my body-mind-complex and thus by extension everything else "out there".
Is there an "out there"? Or is it brain and nervous system projection created by the very subtle mechanics of the visual system - the retina and the optic nerves.
You can be sure that the usual Christian true believer has not even begun such a profound depth-level investigation.
Nobody really knows diddly squat about long the ago very dead mythological"Jesus". Certainly none of the usual self-righteous Christians who want to impose their beliefs on to everyone else.

The applied political consequences of such beliefs backed up by the bogus "great commission", means that self-righteous true believers such as Cory Bernadi and his various right wing supporters presume that they have a "divine mandate" to impose their narrow-minded sectarian views on to every one else.
Be very wary of the Christian Taliban say I. Speaking of which the USA Focus On the Family outfit is a key and influential player in the USA.

Meanwhile of course the purpose and structure of this forum allows everyone to FREELY criticize the ideas of the people who write the essays, and to freely criticise the ideas of the people that make such critical comments.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 10 January 2014 11:36:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, pooh-sticks Daffy Duck

>>I get "attacked" by Pericles for quite rightly criticizing Boxgum's untenable beliefs.<<

That's not an attack.

(I'm tempted to Crocodile-Dundee it a bit here, and say "THAT's an attack", but that would just be showboating.)

Whether "rightly" criticizing or not, your remarks were off-topic. The point is not whether the belief in a deity is correct or incorrect, but that religion still influences a substantial proportion of our population.

The article makes but one salient point, which is that the taxpayer should not continue to support these beliefs financially. You, quite correctly, address the issue in its political context...

>>The applied political consequences of such beliefs backed up by the bogus "great commission", means that self-righteous true believers... presume that they have a "divine mandate" to impose their narrow-minded sectarian views on to every one else.<<

In this, you and I are in agreement. But (here comes that "attack", watch out!) the beliefs themselves are irrelevant, and the financial/political concerns stand completely outside whether there is a factual or logical - or even, in your analysis, validly spiritual - foundation for those beliefs.

Ouch. I feel your pain.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 10 January 2014 12:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wallace provides some fair comments there, and perhaps some things Christians should take away and reflect upon. He has genuinely given Christians some food for thought. But overall, a frustrating read.

The fair comments are mixed in with ludicrous unsupported statements. Since when did Christian organisations become obsessed with growing their own wealth? What evidence does Wallace provide to think this is true? The truth is that the average Christian pastor is not very well paid at all. Another truth is that the majority of hours that people spend in Churches are unpaid hours by volunteers.

When you take out the bit about Christian organisations and churches being money hungry thieves (which is total nonsense) the article becomes nothing more than a jumbled mixture of very brief commentary on various things, without any need for some grandiose conclusion.

Separation of church and state. A good idea, but one that needs to be fleshed out in terms of exactly what it means practically, and Wallace doesn’t seriously grapple with any of the issues there. The stats suggest the western church is in continual decline? Yep. Is this due to the fall of genuine Christianity or the fall of nominalism? A fair question, but again Wallace’s concern doesn't extend to looking at the issues deeply. Rather, Wallace is just pushing an agenda here. Christians in Western countries have some challenges in integrating their faith with modern life (that is, the ones who take their faith seriously). True. I’d encourage Wallace to visit a good church where that issue is regularly wrestled with from the pulpit. Like mine, for example. And governments should never support churches or religion in any way shape or form. Sorry WHAT? How does this follow from any of the above?
Posted by Trav, Monday, 13 January 2014 11:44:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well and good, Trav. But at the end you fell into the same bad habit that you observed in Mr Wallace's article.

>>And governments should never support churches or religion in any way shape or form. Sorry WHAT? How does this follow from any of the above?<<

The "any of the above" that you presumably refer to are your own observations, so it is hardly fair to ask anyone else for an explanation.

If you were instead referring to Mr Wallace's position, I think it is reasonable to protest government money going to organizations that are, for example "obsessed with growing their own wealth". So either way, your expostulation is without credible grounds.

While I agree wholeheartedly that the article is thin gruel indeed, it does at least offer some justification for taxpayers' money to be withheld from religious organizations. If you object to this, which you appear to do, it is not unreasonable to expect you to bring forward some form of counterargument - "they should surely be supported, for x and y reason". As it is, you are simply defending a status quo merely because it is the status quo.

>>I’d encourage Wallace to visit a good church where that issue is regularly wrestled with from the pulpit. Like mine, for example<<

Fair enough. But why should it be in any way reasonable that you expect me to pay your church to conduct that wrestling? What is wrong with "user pays" in this context?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 13 January 2014 1:30:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wherever, whenever I see Christianity is under attack, I recall the lyric written by Francis Scott Key:

"And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;"

Yes, our flag is still there, enduring the rockets and bombs raining down on it from all sides. If Christianity were really abandoned, trashed, discredited, forgotten, there won't have been any relentless and ferocious attack on the faith.

It brings profound joy to my heart to see the enemies of Christianity are falling over themselves in the futile battle to uproot the "religion"; it confirms my faith and demonstrates the relevance of the idea of God, in this deep dark night.
Posted by Peng, Tuesday, 14 January 2014 7:27:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How true, Peng.

>>If Christianity were really abandoned, trashed, discredited, forgotten, there won't have been any relentless and ferocious attack on the faith.<<

And if Christianity were really abandoned, trashed, discredited, forgotten, we wouldn't have to complain about it being supported by the taxpayer.

Since you are here, could you give us a cogent reason why everyone else should be required to pay for your chosen faith?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 14 January 2014 7:36:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let Caesar's be Caesar's; God's be God's.

I don't not believe the church should be any part of the worldly economic activity. If they choose to take part of the worldly economic activity, they should and must pay tax, as everyone of us does; if they are no part of the activity, no tax shall be imposed upon them. (In reality, many other non-religious organisations are exempted from paying taxes for various reasons.)

In a democracy, however, it is the right of the majority to decide whether it is appropriate to impose tax on the Christian church. You and I may have our own opinion, be it rational or not, in the end, it is the people who vote make the final decisions.

In terms of taxation and law, I am no expert; however, I understand there are more nuanced argument relating to the matter, apart from the issue of religion. For instance, does the separation of the state and church mean the church is independent of the state's revenue regime? What is the stand of the Constitution on the issue? etc, etc.

I have to leave it to the professionals to argue the case.
Posted by Peng, Tuesday, 14 January 2014 8:08:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles appears obsessed about public funds going to Church based activity. He seems to be quite a liberal in allowing us Christians to wallow in our insecurities and delusions and protecting us from attack from the likes of Daffy... But it is the money, the money.

The history of public funded education in the Colonies shows a battle not of separation of powers but the full force of sectarianism where one Christian denomination battled to keep any other getting an edge over the other. However it was settled well without the need of secularism being imposed to end the "religious wars".

The reality is that our social roots are Christian whose biblical narratives have served to implant in the national consciousness the call to service of "the other" and the ethos of honesty and integrity that comes with it. These are the foundations of our key institutions. They are priceless. As is the knowledge of man the Church carries in her wisdom - our propensity towards good and bad. Its scriptural message encourages the former and seeks to make good the latter.

The age of the great leveling in social theory has diminished us. Their godless utilitarian morality has seeped into the education of our youth and the personal moral laxity they cannot but encourage has seen the baby boomer generation become sloppy, passive and self serving.

Wallace's article is nonsense. But it is good to engage with Pericles.
Posted by boxgum, Tuesday, 14 January 2014 8:46:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, I wasn't obliged to provide any counter arguments, because all I was doing was merely showing that Mr Wallace's final position and conclusion had no substance- at least as far as he had developed it in this article.

But since you've asked, the topic of churches and government funding is a thorny one. Keeping in mind that this article was about New Zealand, I can only speak more broadly and also to the Australian situation. In Australia, the rules around charities and tax exemptions are complex. But on a broad scale, there is a divide between organisations with a social purpose and those with a profit making or commercial purpose. Clearly churches fall into the latter category and thus cannot be expected to pay tax, just as other community organisations should not either.
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 14 January 2014 9:29:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy