https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/111890460/anzac-day-services-set-to-go-ahead-across-country-despite-auckland-cancellations

What wimps are the authorities in Auckland

The Council,police and RS&A have canceled 58 Anzac services in Auckland because of the Christchurch terrorist attack.

Looks like they are scared there might be a reprisal attack. What happened to the 'we should carry on as usual' message. Our fallen diggers would turn in their graves.

Stuff the authorities, I reckon the locals should turn up at the regular time at the local memorials and hold their own services. There is no need for all the hoopla, everyone knows the ODE and the Lords prayer. The fact that people turn up for the service is the most important thing.

I hope the ordinary folk in Auckland go it alone and hold their own services

Again

http://www.australianhunting.net/index.php?topic=246755.0

NZ has been lead brilliantly after this mass murder
No Reason to think that has changed
What if an insane terrorist has been waiting for a reason to murder
Just maybe a bomb,in such a crowd,would murder many
ANZAC will not suffer because of this move, people are not backing down
NZ has a government that cares about its people

Given the appalling virtue signalling and cultural appropriation of the New Zealand Prime Minister of late, this is not surprising. Closer to home, in neo-communist Victoria, there is talk of getting rid of the Lord's Prayer in parliament to suck up to foreign religions and cultures that have been forced on us by multiculturalism, mass immigration, and other bullshiteisms. It's all about paving the way for the end of the West.

Belly,
This is not about New Zealand's PM or her actions after the terrorist shooting in Christchurch.

Its about the wimping of the Auckland authorities in relation to Anzac memorial services. I have the highest regard for NZ defense forces past and present and for the fortitude of NZ people generally.

But the actions of the Auckland council, police and R&SA is nothing short of giving in to terrorists. Terrorists act as they do to frighten people so they will comply with terrorist wants. No other town has reduced their services for Anzac day.

I suggest that safety of citizens was not the motive for reducing the number of services, It is weakness on the part of the city officials. They are running scared as there is no actual threat. Nothing has changed and an attack could come anywhere, any time.

If we are concerned about safety then we should take action to reduce the number of likely muslim extreme persons in our society.

New Zealand Prime Minister - Jacinda Ardern has
confirmed that the Duke of Cambridge will be
in Auckland for ANZAC Day and that she will travel
with him to Christchurch the following Day.

ANZAC services have been reduced in New Zealand.
The reduced number makes it easier for police to
maintain safety. Only the areas that police said
were hard to monitor were reduced. This amounted
to approximately from 58 down to 26. There still be
10 dawn services and 16 civic services across
Auckland.

Also according to the
New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade (Manatu Aorere)
Department - there will be ANZAC Day Services at all
of their embassies overseas - from Beijing in China,
to Moscow in Russia. Anzac day will be celebrated by
New Zealand - where it is a national holiday - and that
is not about to change.

Now to the topic of the Lord's Prayer and the Victorian
Parliament?

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has flagged opening
Parliament with a multi-faith ceremony instead of the
Lord's Prayer. This came about due to pressure from
the diverse Member of Parliament. The religions
observed by state MPs include - Christianity, Judaism,
Islam and Hinduism. At the start of every day the
Speaker and the President lead the Lord's Prayer in
the Upper and Lower House.

The Premier has said he was open to the idea IF it had
widespread support and would be welcoming of other
religions.

People have been calling for change and the state
government has referred this matter to the procedure
committee for review.

Even though the Premier has stated that it was also
important to conserve some traditions

nothing to say about the near mad rant about Victoria?
Best leave, see the thread as a molehill being constructed in to a mountain to deliver one sided messages

Will all these cans of worms these mutts open, they'd be better advised to go fishing !
The catch would be far more beneficial than the future social problems they're creating !

Since recent evidence points to the loss of religious freedom, and a withering away of free speech, cancelling Anzac Day is appropriate.

Anzac Day celebration was a token of gratitude towards men and women who sacrificed years of their life, and often life itself, for the service of peace and freedom from political control over the basic democratic principles of right and justice.

Now the old war has transposed itself into a new war ON traditional cultural norms of a Cristian morality, where everything must be protected EXCEPT Christian morality.

The battle is waged by a legion of the "smug" among us, who consistently expose their hands as traitors to our country and way of life; a way of life now as dead and dying as the Anzac tradition on itself.

The number of young people and families that
attend the Dawn services around the world
and in this country, that travel to the
actual sites themselves - shows that this
tradition is very much alive and well.

Perhaps some people need to attend and see for
themselves the reality of what's really happening
in our brave world. The younger generations are
constantly showing us that the future is in very
good hands. They are not carrying the baggage and
prejudices that still exists amongst some crotchety
old men.

Exactly why are the services cancelled ? What are they worried about ? Another Australian bogan causing mayhem ? With all those peaceful Muslims in Auckland there shouldn't really be any concern about safety.

Perhaps we should cancel ANZAC Day, that should appease any potential Islamic terrorist sufficiently? The 'maggots'!

Fraser Anning being proved right!

Australia has fought no religious wars, and its soldiers were of different religions and none. The final Australian commander in WW1 was not a Christian. Memorial Christian religious services seem inappropriate. A non-religious memorial ceremony seem to me more appropriate to commemorate the fallen than a religious service.

A non-religious memorial ceremony seem to me more appropriate to commemorate the fallen than a religious service.
david f,
I totally agree !

david f,

"Memorial Christian religious services seem inappropriate"

Why?
At least 93.756% of the Australian soldiers in WW1 were Christians.

Dear Is Mise,

93.756 is not all. The ceremony should include all.

Hi there DAVID F...

Traditionally, ANZAC Day has always been commemorated by Christain services in my memory. No doubt there were some servicemen & women who were not Christian. But Australia is a predominantly Christian country founded primarily on Christain principles, therefore why change for the minority.

Of course, those minorities, have every right to commemorate the solemnity of ANZAC Day, in their own way, and I fully support it. However, the day we drop those Christain principles is another death knell for perhaps the holiest day in our Nation's calendar?

o sung wu,

Total agreement, mate.

david f,

Maybe we could also do away religious themes at Xmas as not all Australians are Christian?

Certainly, the various religious holidays should be abolished.

Dear o sung wu,

I do not advocate Christians losing their Christian principles. It just seems to me that Christian religious services to commemorate a war which was not fought for Christianity nor were all those who fought on our side Christian is inappropriate. It would be appropriate to have a service in memory of those Christians of good will who opposed that stupid, tragic war.

Dear Is Mise,

Religious holidays are religious holidays. Anzac day is not a religious holiday.

Religious holidays are religious holidays. Anzac day is not a religious holiday.
david f,
Agree again, why the need for perverting everything with religion ?

Hi (again) DAVID F...

All wars are stupid and tragic. Nevertheless, men and women are sent to those wars irrespective of their religious proclivities or none. They have no say. As a serviceman or woman, you're directed, as to what and where you'll serve, without any input or discussion from yourself.

What I'm trying to say David, and very badly at that, Australia is a Christian Nation. It was founded on Christian principles, Christianity prevails in our Government, Courts of Law, our Military, police and civil service. In fact, just about all areas of our existence where religion plays some part. Of course, there are other minorities who've aided us in times of conflict, for which Australia's most grateful. However, for the reason's I've articulated herein, I see no fundamental reason to change.

Dear o sung wu,

In no place in the Australian Constitution is Christianity mentioned or endorsed. Christianity is the majority religion in Australia, but the laws are not based on Christianity. They are based on English Common Law with some influence from the US Constitution. English Common Law is based on precedent not religion. The mention of religion in the Australian Constitution is in S.116 which states:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The US Constitution has almost the same wording in regard to religion. The interpretation of the law by the US Supreme Court and the Australian High Court are different.

In Australia there is government aid to religious schools and chaplains in the public schools. In the US this would be illegal

The following link may be of interest.

The Australian Government -Department of Defence has prepared
an order of service for Anzac Day. I'm sure that we can
all agree on it as it does make allowances for other faiths.
It's worth a read:

http://www.defence.gov.au/Ceremonial/AnzacDayHandyHints.asp

Hi there DAVID F...

Your first paragraph was entirely superfluous, as I taught law subjects (including the Foundations of Australian Law) at the Police Academy. Moreover, I appreciate what you say is technically correct. However, it's 'taken' as a given; by the majority of Australians, that we 'are' most assuredly, a Christain Country.

Those individuals who would argue that point and seek to deny that fact, are wrong. David, I'd never try to invalidate the technical component of your assertion, as I know you'd deliver a salvo, with your knowledge of history, that would revoke my version entirely.

However, if you were to ask virtually any Aussie born here, whether Australia, in their mind, is overall a Christian country, I'm positive most would say yes. Some may qualify their answer with; 'not me, I'm a Buddhist,' or 'no, I'm Islamic' and others, no way, 'I'm an atheist.' But generally speaking, if pressed, most would say, Australia is a Christian country, and it has been so, ever since it was first discovered.

I'm exhausted David, you do really keep me on my toes, even though I generally end up in a veritable screaming mess, at the end of proceedings! :-)

david f,

"... Christianity is the majority religion in Australia, but the laws are not based on Christianity. They are based on English Common Law with some influence from the US Constitution. English Common Law is based on precedent not religion."

and what is the precedent based on?

david f,

"... Christianity is the majority religion in Australia, but the laws are not based on Christianity. They are based on English Common Law with some influence from the US Constitution. English Common Law is based on precedent not religion."

and what is the precedent based on?

"Christianity was and is a part of the common law and is interwoven into the texture of the society. Similarly, common law is based on Christian principles. However, courts have never recognized the religion to be controlling in their decision making."
http://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/christianity/

Dear Is Mise,

The precedent is decided on the outcomes of previous cases. In such a manner is a body of law built up. However, to the best of my knowledge, the criterion for a decision is what is just - not what conforms to a religious dictate.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=common+law&form=EDGNB2&mkt=en-au&httpsmsn=1&refig=9b978bcf19054e22abcd59cdc015eb93&sp=-1&pq=common+law&sc=8-10&qs=n&sk=&cvid=9b978bcf19054e22abcd59cdc015eb93

Dear o sung wu,

Australia is a secular country with a Christian majority. Australian literature and culture is greatly influenced by Christianity. If we are part of Australian culture we are culturally Christian regardless of our religious proclivities. However, all democratic western countries accept the principle of separation of religion and state to a greater or lesser degree. Australia gives state aid to religious schools. If Australia were really a Christian country in law that aid would be restricted to Christian schools. As it is, aid is given to all religious schools regardless of religion.

At the age of 17 I joined the US Army. Recruits were required to take an oath which included the words “defend and protect the United States Constitution”. I thought, “Hey, wait a minute. Nine justices on the Supreme Court often find it difficult to agree on what is constitutional. You’re asking a 17 year old to be a constitutional lawyer and decide whether an order is constitutional?” I hesitated consulting my conscience as to whether I could honestly take the oath. The recruiting sergeant yelled, “Are you in or out?” With misgivings I stepped forward and took the oath.

O sung wu wrote: “All wars are stupid and tragic. Nevertheless, men and women are sent to those wars irrespective of their religious proclivities or none. They have no say. As a serviceman or woman, you're directed, as to what and where you'll serve, without any input or discussion from yourself.”

The above is not strictly true. I was a soldier in the United States Army in WW2. The United States was engaged in the Atlantic and the Pacific Theaters of Operations. We were asked if we had objections to serving in either theater. We had a choice. If we didn’t want to go to one, we were sent to the other

david f,

"Christianity was and is a part of the common law and is interwoven into the texture of the society. Similarly, common law is based on Christian principles. However, courts have never recognized the religion to be controlling in their decision making."
http://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/christianity/

What did you find hard about the above?

English Common Law is based on Christianity.

Dear Is Mise,

I won't argue about it any more. The following article on the basis of common law says nothing about Christianity.

http://www.lawplainandsimple.com/legal-guides/article/the-basics-of-common-law

If you repeat an untruth a million times it still remains untrue.

Dear Is Mise,

We each cited a source. Yours mentioned Christianity. Mine didn't. I looked up more and found others that mentioned the influence of Christianity. You are right. I am wrong.

English Common Law is based on Christianity.
is Mise,
That goes a long way towards explaining the mess the West is in !

David f,

Thank's for that, there are few here who are gentlemanly enough to admit a mistake, let alone concede a point.

individual,

Go East young man!!

Dear Is Mise,

I realise what has happened. I remember reading that the common law had no connection with Christianity. I accepted that and incorporated that into my thinking. Possibly, it was because I wanted it to be true. However, I learn more from the people who disagree with me than from those who sing in the same choir.

David,

Very true, as a Catholic most of my friends through life have been Protestants, Hindus and Muslims in that order, with a few atheists thrown in for good measure.

Following is by Chrys Stevenson

Time to take religion out of Anzac commemorations
by thatsmyphilosophy

I come from a military family. My brother served in both the Australian navy and the airforce. My cousin and his father served in the airforce. My father served in the AIF in Morotai. My uncles served in the Middle East, including one who was in the Rats of Tobruk Both my grandfathers served in France in World War I. My grandmother was a military nurse. My grandfather, Harold Robert Norman Stevenson was the recipient of a Military Medal. And yet, as the descendant of this military family, I am effectively excluded from attending Anzac Day commemorations because of the overt religiosity (often tinged with right-wing, religious fundamentalism) of the current commemorations. I am sure I am not alone.

I am an atheist. My father, whose service cost him is mental health, was an atheist - although he preferred to call himself a 'Jumping Calathumpian'. Yet I cannot attend a commemoration without being assaulted with religious, prayers, sermons and a sanitised version of Anzacs as god-fearing, saintly heroes that would both amuse and horrify them.

It’s time the RSL took religion out of Anzac services and made them secular. People of all religions and none, including Indigenous soldiers, served at Gallipoli and in other campaigns across time and place. We cannot continue to commemorate them in a way that distorts and dishonours this reality.

Australian defence personnel were not religious in the past, nor are they now. A report from Colonel Philip Hoglin of the Australian Army reminds us of the: “… overlooked reality that the largest ‘religious’ grouping in the ADF no longer subscribes to, or is affiliated with, a religion.”

In 2015, over 47 per cent of ADF personnel had no religion. It is also likely that many of the remaining 53 per cent are only nominally Christian - do not attend church, believe in the power of prayer, or even believe in a supernatural deity.

Religious ANZAC Day services certainly don’t represent the contemporary ADF. But, what of the Anzacs?

continued

continued

As a group, the Anzacs were not religious. After the war, Australians were profoundly uncomfortable as the church worked assiduously to co-opt the commemorations.

Last year, Ann-Therese King shared a letter from her grandfather’s French fiancée to his mother, describing her impression of the Australian soldiers who defended her homeland in World War I:
“… they are big, hard men, men, who live hard, fight hard, and think less of death than any other body of men I have ever met. They seem to be very irreligious, and sometimes uncouth, but they are brave and large-hearted, and though naturally we have men of all kinds with us, I think their code of honour is the most admirable, that is to be found.” (My emphasis)

This is confirmed by Australian anthropologist, Bruce Kapferer in his book, Legends of People, Myths of State. He says:

“Many of the soldiers … were irreligious virtually by intention. Christian religion was part of the disciplinary framework of the military and the officers of religion were part of that structure of domination which denied to the men a self-determining autonomy valued in egalitarian thought.” (My emphasis)

Similarly, in his book, Inventing Anzac, professor of folklore at Curtin University, Graham Seal, says:

“… the expression and observance of religious belief was discouraged within digger culture.”

What these historians are saying, is that religion is not just irrelevant, but antithetical to the Anzac tradition. Kapferer is clear: Religion was not just absent from Anzac culture - irreligion was ‘valorised’. In fact, the essence of ANZAC, part of what became the ‘religion’ of ANZAC was this irreligiosity. Historian, Michael Belcher, refers to the padres who accompanied the Anzacs as ‘poorly appreciated’. The Anzacs, themselves, referred to them as “Cook’s Tourists”. As World War I veteran, Major Frank Valentine Weir wrote in his letter diary on 31 December 1916:

continued

continued


After the war, says Belcher, most Australian clergy were reluctant to participate formally in Anzac Day commemorations because they did not want to glorify WWI as a ‘Holy War’.


Indeed, as Carl M F Fischer wrote to the Courier-Mail in 1914:
“If these fighting nations were Christian nations they would obey Christ whose directions are, ‘If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink.’”

After the war, the Protestant church worked hard to co-opt the Anzac Day ceremonies but there was a huge backlash from diggers and families of other religions and of none. By 1938, the Victorian RSL announced: “An Anzac Day service without prayers which, it Is hoped, will be acceptable to all Churches …”

Their plan did not totally excise religion: “The proposed new form does not Include spoken prayers or the Benediction, but the hymn 'Abide with Me' will be included. An opportunity for those attending the service to recite the Lord’s prayer will be provided.”
The Moderator of the Victorian Presbyterian Assembly (the Right Rev. F. W.Rolland) responded positively to this mostly secular plan:
“Personally, I realise that the Returned Soldiers' League desires to have everyone attend the gathering at the Shrine. It is almost Impossible to arrange a service that will suit everyone,and the question seems to resolve itself into securing the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Surely the RSL and the church, today, could be equally as magnanimous?
The extreme religiosity of many Anzac services is disrespectful to the memory and tradition of the Anzacs, to many of their family members and to many of those currently serving in the ADF. The conservative, right wing dog-whistling that takes place in some sermons (see, for example, my "Perverting Anzac Day for Jesus", 2016) is exploitative and excludes many of us who would like to participate.

continued

continued

Few would begrudge the opportunity for the faith community to agree upon an ecumenical prayer or observance, but, beyond that, Anzac commemorations must be secular so as not to exclude anyone, including the Anzacs who would not recognise themselves in the sanitised saintly soldiers who are honoured, today, in their stead.

Chrys Stevenson

A solution would be to ask the ANZACS.

I, too, come from a long line of soldiers and I never heard one of them say anything disparaging about Chaplains, quite the reverse and always a special mention of the "Salvo Bloke".

My own experience of Army Chaplains was always positive, especially one who was kicked out of Korea for disobeying a lawful command; he'd been forbidden to go out anymore to bring in wounded as it was thought that he was risking his life to often.

The very next day he went out again, was spotted by the Colonel and was in Japan by nightfall.

This ANZAC Day I was at the Dawn Service and was chatting to two Sikh veterans and they had no problems with it being a Christian service.

Army Chaplains have more bravery awards, on a per capita basis than any other comparable group in the service.