In the early 1970s a group named the Family Rights Association wrote
All families are suffering at present, infidelity and divorce are very common. Marriages are breaking down at a record rate. When love dies hatred emerges and the children are exposed to suffering and neglect. Parents often see their children’s lives being ruined by drugs, alcoholism and promiscuity, swept along by an overwhelming flood of pornography and evil. Pressure groups claim that marriage is outmoded. De facto relationships are accepted by society and are treated generously by the Government. Normal sexuality is almost submerged by demands for recognition of homosexuality and other perversions. Illegitimacy and venereal disease have reached epidemic proportions. Social anarchy threatens.
Much of that could have been written by Family First in 2009, or many other groups in the intervening 35 years.
Despite this constant thread of social conservatism and fearful reaction to social change, NZ has made enormous socially progressive change since the early 1970s. We have criminalised rape within marriage, decriminalised anal sex, provided access to abortion, passed the Human Rights Act, allowed no fault divorce, decriminalised prostitution, provided sex education in schools, enabled legal recognition of same-sex relationships, banned corporal punishment in schools, and passed domestic violence protection laws (to name just a few).
Perhaps the role of the Christian Right is a necessary one; it does not prevent change but it slows it and makes sure there’s enough discussion that the more conservative members of our society don’t get left behind and alienated from a society that moves too quickly and doesn’t take the time to persuade them and bring them along.
While I campaign for more liberal and progressive progress, I’m not sure I would be willing to pay the price of a divided antagonistic society. Perhaps I should thank the Christian Right for slowing us down enough that we can move together as a community.
Just by labelling views that aren’t as ‘progressive’ as your own, as ‘The Christian Right’ you are passively dismissing the validity of their views, aren’t you? The idea being that as a check to fulfilling the progressive agenda, they have their uses, but at the end of the day, they are to be dismissed with a ‘Well-done you!’? Personally I got rather tired of seeing people belittling anyone who disagreed with ‘progressive’ politics as ‘The Christian Right’ as if they belonged to an inferior species, tiring, especially during the flame wars over the s.59 debate. It’s just intellectual laziness.
What if the circle came fully round, and it turned out that infidelity, not being in a stable, committed relationship not providing a two-parent (heterosexual) unit or not imposing ‘loving discipline’ on our children were proven to be damaging to our overall well-being as a society – would that entitle us to label opposing views ‘regressive’?
If you follow my drift…
A little too passive if you ask me. Lee – you will find no circle on the the development of sexuality – that is up to your DNA and evolution. As to to the xtian right – the validity of their views is based on a bronze age cult with a superiority complex.
I don’t know, Anita. I see your point, but the trouble is, they might slow down progress a little too much.
Look at the s 59 debate as an example. We finally get rid of an anachronistic, “spare the rod”, Christian-based criminal defence, which enabled parents to lawfully “discipline” children in a way we can’t even lawfully do to animals, and yet thanks to the Christian right, we are now facing a referendum on the issue and the threat of the defence being re-installed!
I don’t know, but I tend to agree with Ukulatheist. Whenever measures are taken in this country to treat all human beings like human beings regardless of their occupation (prostitution law reform) or their sexuality (civil unions), the cry of “social engineering” emerges from the lips of the Christian right thereby halting progress further towards a more tolerant, loving society.
Interesting post thought, it’s made me think!
Lee,
I don’t think so, no :)
The phrase “Christian Right” is widely used (including by the Christian Right themselves) and is no more dismissive than “Christian Left” (which I use of myself) or “Anti-globalisation movement”. These are simply labels for social policy players. There is an established Christian Right, they have an agenda which is as valid as any other.
I sometimes avoid using the word “progressive” as it can seem loaded with positive value judgement, but in this case I think it’s fine. What I was saying here is that social change occurs (and much of it occurs without any deliberate activism), and the debate is about how much and how fast. At one end of the continuum there is “progressive” which is more faster change, somewhere near the other end there is “conservative” (no change, status quo), beyond that there is “regressive “(roll back change to an earlier state).
I think we agree :)
1) I think it’s really important to recognise that the Christian Right is a force in the debate about social issues. They are a genuine force as valid as any other, they have (and create) a constituency, they mobilise, they campaign, they win some battles, they lose some battles, they exert effective influence.
2) The Christian Right is only one part of, what I shall call, the Traditional Values movement. Some of the groups arguing against section 59, for example, were not Christian, others were Christian but were not part of the Christian Right. It bugs me that analysis sometimes overlooks the diversity of of the Traditional Values movement.
I struggle with your use of the term “Christian Right”.
Anyone who derives their values from the Old Testament cannot be described, IMHO, as Christian. Sure, the Big G set down (in stone apparently) The Ten Commandments. But then He sent His representative, Jesus Christ, to say: now the time has come to render unto Ceasar and to love everyone, regardless of their sin.
Thus it ever was. One of the more interesting realisations I had recently was on reading the observations of Jamie Oliver when he visited Rothermere in his efforts to get parents cooking better for kids. There were generations of kids who never learned cooking, parenting, basic home skills. It is difficult for a parent to teach children something they never learned for themselves. The education/welfare system makes limited efforts to break that cycle and in handing out unlimited amounts of cash to enable feckless parents to fund a life of booze drugs and parties the welfare supporting left is actively sabotaging human happiness and a stable society.
As there will ever be people with no morality and values unlearned there will ever be those willing to impose their own values and morality on others. Bradford simply being among the more vocal in advocating fecklessness and immorality. Quite what she thinks nirvana to be I have no idea.
What I do know is that if you are advocating people should have greater rights to self determination you are probably on the right track. Use of force, whether state or social probably means you are not.
And I do think that using force to tax me to pay for people too immoral or ignorant to look after themselves is the wrong track. Let those who believe in supporting them donate to charities for the purpose. There is a great deal wrong with the “progressive” path.
That said there is still serfdom and slavery in many countries and New Zealand has a justifiably proud egalitarian tradition.
I am with Lee on this one, the basic presumption of your argument is that the “progressive” (whatever that may mean) direction is the correct one. Even the sea anchor analogy is quite incorrect in that sense. Intellectual laziness indeed.
Elizabeth seems to be even more convinced of the correctness of her own assumptions, going as far as equation the s59 amendments with a move towards “a more tolerant loving society”. If there is anything not tolerant it is taking the position that others are wrong simply because they don’t subscribe to your agenda.
Dimmocrazy, that is because (in my view) it is. As a lawyer I once was involved with a case where the parents were acquitted by the jury of assault on their son with a wooden stick studded with nails, on the basis it was “reasonable force” as he was such a naughty boy. I find that abhorrent. That is why I personally rejoiced when s 59 was repealed.
If you read the new s 59 carefully, you will see that it is that situation the repeal was designed to combat.
Sorry, Anita, I don’t want your very interesting post to be hi-jacked by a debate on s 59, but just for the record, here’s the full text of the amended provision:
“[59Parental control
(1)Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a)preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b)preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c)preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d)performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3)Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4)To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.]\”
BLiP,
Arguing about who is and isn’t a Christian is not somewhere I think it’s useful to go. For a start in the absence of Jesus it’s hard to know how to make the decision :)
I happily use the term “Christian Right” because it’s well accepted and because they believe they’re Christian and that’s enough for me. What do you prefer to call them?
Dimmocrazy,
I don’t think it is a basic assumption, I think my assumption is that progress will occur (society will change) no matter what.
I liked my sea anchor analogy :(
A sea anchor is normally put out by a ship to prevent it being blown faster than it wants by strong winds – it is a conscious act, it is to slow movement not to stop it or to move backward.
I want to try out the idea that we as a society create/need the Christian Right so that we don’t move too fast and are not blown about by sudden changes of wind direction or strength.
Anita said:
Please – don’t tempt me! How about “fat, bald, middle-aged, usually Pakeha men who think they own their wife and children”. However, I happily accept your point and will bow out now.
Elizabeth said:
Yep – me too. I just cannot believe that there are still people who call themselves Christian and who believe that children should have less protection under the law than dogs.
Yep, Blip, me too. I don’t understand it at all. I also don’t understand how, if Jesus was supposed to have preached love thy neighbour, how that mandates treating women, homosexuals, prostitutes as second class citizens. What, love thy neighbour but only if thy neighbour is like thou?!!
So hypocritical, but I better bow out now and go and enjoy the sunshine before I say something I regret. Human first eh, colour/sexuality/gender/occupation/religious belief a distant and irrelevant second in my *bible*
Anita: I think many among the Christian Right would also object to your implicit characterisation of the movement as `anti-progress’ :)
I think this is the role of any political force – to influence their society’s culture to the extent to which they are able to attract a constituency, promulgate their messages and values and endorse their policy priorities. Marginal groups (and I use the term `marginal’ in the technical, non-pejorative sense) are particularly important as they can serve to mark the boundaries – the margins – of what society considers acceptable. They help to mark out `normal’ and `abnormal’.
I think it’s important that democracies are much less naïve than they were in the first half of the last century, and are now highly resistant to hijack by marginal interests. Far from representing a threat to orthodoxy and democracy, marginal groups are now held in check by the electorate’s native suspicion about those who come bearing a message of radical change, or of complete stasis. I think this is borne out by the widespread perception that the s59 repeal (although supported by National, and having had practically no negative impacts) was an instance of the Greens and Labour overreaching their mandate, and enacting law against the wishes of the people.
So the role of marginal groups is to gradually move political and cultural orthodoxy. I think the current drift in orthodoxy is toward the green movement, and we will see (are seeing) groups begin to influence the policy process to slow that drift.
L
I think the main point is, as the title points out, that they are religious. We live in a secular society and as such they should not hoist their religious views on anyone else through the law. They are free to live their lives as they wish they can abstain from drugs and alcohol, they can be monogamous, and as dull as they like, but they should not try in any coercive way to control how others live their lives. I’m sure they wouldn’t like it if I wished to suppress their religion and so they shouldn’t try to suppress the ways others wish to live their lives.
Quoth the Ravem
Is the problem that the views are religious?
If I wanted to, for example, ban the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks in New Zealand, would it matter whether my view came from faith or personal non-faith based conviction? If my evidence for why the ban should be imposed was five well designed longitudinal studies and two passages from the Bible would that be worse than if it was just the same five studies?
I think we have moved too far toward dismissing all opinions that have some basis in faith, why should they be any less valid than any other personally held opinions?
I’m vegetarian would knowing whether that arises from faith alter your opinion of my ethical choice?
Why not just call it an ethical choice instead of qualifying it with whatever imaginary sky fairy is fashionable at the moment.
NOT FAR ENOUGH!!
Sorry Anita – I notice you have edited out your vegetarian comment. Don’t hide it – there are too few of us in NZ :-)
Ukulatheist,
I just put back to vegetarian comment cos I noticed you quoted it. I took it out cos I realised I’d written three paragraphs all of which ended with question marks and it bothered me :)
Yes, there should be more vegetarians in NZ :)
Ukulatheist,
Because some of my ethical choices are based in faith. Why should I hide that? I don’t usually tell people which ones are (I don’t usually tell people how I came to ethical choices in general), but if I was to discuss one in particular why shouldn’t I say it comes from faith?
Or are you saying that I should not have faith so none of my ethical choices should be based in faith?
T
The point that I’m trying to make is you have not made a decision – I seems that your ‘faith’ has made the decision for you.
Ukalatheist,
I think we might be talking at cross-purposes. No-one has made the decisions for me, they come from my personal ethical convictions which are centred around my own experience of God.
Perhaps it would help to say I’m from a non-creedal faith, I tend to forget we’re rare and don’t fit the expected model. This means that I have beliefs which are founded in my faith which are not shared with many/most/some/any other members of my faith, my beliefs are my own and come from my own experience and are not taught or ministered.
Anyhow, back on topic for a moment. If a group was campaigning for the elimination of pornography, would their campaign hold less value for you because they identified as a Christian group?
Antia – No it’s your choice. But if you wanted to make vegetarianism compulsory because of that faith than I would resist it. The same goes for alcohol A person should be able to what they wish with thier own body and mind. As such they can ascribe to any religious faith they wish to, drink or eat what they wish. To use an equally ridiculous example as yours if I found scientific studies that demonstrated a link between prayer and mental illness should I then campaign for prayer to be illegal? Answer no – a person can do what they wish with their own mind and body even if that entails great risk to themselves, but they have no right to force anyone else to do the same. Consistency you see.
Anita
Personally, yes if the basis for their campaign was their Christian beliefs which they were trying to impose on others.
Elizabeth – you took the words right out of my mouth.
However tacky pornography is – it never tries to justify itself on religious grounds.
“it never tries to justify itself on religious grounds.”
Mel Gibson notwithstanding? ;)
I don’t really care what motivates people to lobby for law changes, but I do think that the law needs to have a secular purpose. If the only argument for the law is along the lines of “God said so”, then I’ll oppose it. ‘Cause God told me he doesn’t work like that.
Elizabeth & Ukalatheist,
If two people are arguing against porn, one because
“God says pornography is immoral”
and the other because
“I was brought up properly and Mum said porn is dirty!”
Then I will accept that porn is axiomatically wrong for each of them, but they have given me no reason to believe that porn is axiomatically wrong for any others or society as a whole. Neither argument carries more or less weight for me.
Do you agree? Or do you think that “God said so” is a weaker argument than “Mum said so”?
My mum’s real!
Well, I guess I’d question where Mum’s belief that “porn is dirty” comes from? My suspicion would be that it comes from the same place as “God said so”, so in my view both arguments are as weak as each other!
But, as an atheist, bottom line is that I have no external entity which governs the way I behave. Thus, to use your example, I condone pornography unless someone (women, children) is being hurt by it and it is happening without their consent. To me, this comes from being *human* and not because some assumed deity or sky fairy (to coin a phrase!) tells me it is right or wrong. To therefore oppose it from some objective sense that it is *wrong* to me is reprehensible (whatever the source of the belief that it is wrong)
Apologies if that makes no sense, I’ve just been drinking champagne in the sun :-)
You should start a cult following, then, based on the words of your Mum!! :-)
Elizabeth,
So where is your sense of “*wrong*” derived from? (Ukalatheist’s Mum is not a good answer :)
One of us should drag this back on topic btw :)
Well, I guess since I truly don’t believe in anything but that when you’re out you’re out and that Christianity was merely a political expediency for Constantine, it must arise from merely being human!
Yes, we should drag this back on topic :) It’s interesting though, I love discussions like this!
“God said so” is by far the weakest argument.
I presume we are referring to the Old Testament version of God? If so, therein lies equal reason for trading humans like cattle, ripping out people’s eyes, cutting off their hands, and stoning them to death. In fact, most other versions of God provide similar such helpful suggestions as to how to run our society.
If it were down to just those two options, I would much prefer “because mum said so”. Otherwise, gimme secular democracy any ole day.
Is the Christian right content to be a conservative sea anchor to progressives, the answer in the both the church and the wider society is no.
As to whether peoples opinions is based in faith or not and does it matter – the fact is, people only make an issue of it when their opinion agrees with their faith. For this reason the conservative and progressive would contend over what the official view of the faith was as well as contend about the issue in wider society.
{The classic disconnect between group faith and personal opinion is of course most Catholic women use the pill, even thought he view of their faith is that they should not and probably most Christian women do not marry as virgins}.
I am not sure the traditional morality right has any role as an anchor on wider society – they have a right to contribute their position in public debate and to live out their faith/morality values in their personal life – as do others.
The western traditional religion is based on a simple concept.
A God created man, and men form nations under God. The nation’s laws are those of men of faith in God. The right to declare the word of God belongs to the government of the nations. The rulers of nations sit on “son/agent of God” thrones on the earth and nations without one await the restoration of their King.
The Christian Church is a world throne cult based on a man from one nation becoming the King of all nations. If they had an army to wipe out the Roman legions they would have fought with swords for national liberation rather than suggest no other man (but their own king) had the right to rule over other men on Earth (a sort of democratic nihilism – beggar your kingdoms too).
Having a degree in religious studies from Massey University, I read this debate with interest. I feel that terminology used is open to debate however. I do not think most KIwi Christians are ” Christian Right ” in the sense Americans have popularised the term.Indeed, the Destiny Church and the Greenlane Christian Fellowship are just rare examples where it is applicable. Contributers ignore the Christian Left. I prefer to think in a Protestant context certainly of liberals and fundamentalists, who support a range of political parties.
James, fair enough, though I think that there have been some comments, (including from original poster) that talk about the Christian left.
I think that you are right in that, in terms of numbers, the Christian right in NZ is small. However they are far more vocal than their liberal counterparts. Or at least, far more effective at getting their voice heard.
Hi,
I agree that the Kiwi Christian Right is small, but it is vocal, and it is gaining political clout. I think it’s been extraordinarily effective in recent years at appearing much larger than it is, at mobilising, and at gaining media acceptance that it speaks for all Christians.
I struggle with some of those terms. Particularly the term “fundamentalist”, for a start many liberal mainstream Christians also claim to be fundamentalist (saying that they also have a literal interpretation of the Bible) and dispute the use of that term for only conservative Christians.
I also think there’s value in distinguishing between the large group of conservative Christians and the subset which are the Christian Right (which actively engages to change society as a whole).
BTW I suspect you and I have some overlap in reading (tho you will have read far more widely than me). Have you seen Evans’ The New Christian Right in New Zealand (1992, from the Waikato Studies in Religion)? He starts by listing all the other terms that have been used for the movement in NZ: the Moral Right, the Authoritarian Right, Populist Moralism, the New Religious Right. Terms which avoid the label “Christian” bug me because the Christian Right is a coherent and separate group within the larger Traditional Values (or Moral Values, etc) movement.
“the Moral Right”
:) Oh dear. That’s just made of fail isn’t it.
” Good evening, I hope i didn’t catch you in the middle of dinner. My name is bookie and I’m calling on behalf of the ‘Moral Right’ because we interested in having your support. I understand that you may be hesitant because the right is normally considered to be a pack of conniving, opportunistic, self centered, grandmother selling, uncompassionate reprobates. We understand your concern. We are not like that. That is the rest of the right. We are the moral right, and we feel that with your help we can be a force that, errr, supports other righties in , umm, opposing the left and arrrm, I beg your pardon, I’ll call back later, this script seems a bit flawed. Click”
PB,
Hee!! :)
One of the interesting questions about the right is
What do the authoritarian right and the libertarian right have in common other than a hatred of feminism?
i) A love of guns?
ii) A harking back to some imagined utopia that existed before all dem uppity intelleckshools started their sneaky takeovering of the children’s minds?
iii) That they confuse ‘ii)’ with ‘conservatism’?