Self-Serving Rubbish

Ram Secularism Down Our Throats


Kiwiblog doyen and chief purveyor, David Farrar has entered the lists to explain why he does not like Bishop Brian Tamaki.  Fair enough.  Everybody is entitled to his express his view.  Regrettably, in this instance, Farrar's comments are little more than pious, self-serving twaddle with a generous dose of confusion thrown in.

Farrar adopts the mien of humility to explain that he is really not qualified to pass judgement on the doctrines of Destiny Church.  Nevertheless there are some things which, to his mind, definitely put Destiny so far out of the corral it is way over the mountain range.  Wait for it.  Here it is . . .

The Catholic Church never formed a political party that stood for Parliament on a platform of forcing its religious beliefs on all New Zealanders.  The Catholic Church also never organised a march called “Enough is Enough” where a thousand or more identically clad black shirted followers marched in military like precision down the main street of Wellington, waving their pre-supplied signs to support the Church’s agenda. (Emphasis, ours.)

This, says the sage Farrar, is a "huge point".  Clearly, it is a legend in his own mind, for he returns to it at the end of his piece:

It is the combination of having formed a political party to force his religious views on us, having declared himself God’s vessel on earth and having an extremely aggressive approach to forcing believers to tithe that get’s my goat, and most people’s. Nothing to do with him being Maori. (Emphasis, ours.)

Now this leaves us all thoroughly confused.  Either Farrar is just fundamentally ignorant of the very nature of democratic government or he is being deliberately deceptive.  One would have thought that forming a political party and seeking electoral support is the right of every citizen or group--a right which all of us are duty bound to defend constitutionally.   Surely Farrar is not suggesting that Brian Tamaki and Destiny Church ought to be excommunicated from any political involvement or engagement.  Surely Farrar is not calling for the abrogation of Tamaki's civil rights.  

One gets the distinct impression that Farrar is now channelling Helen Clarke's bitter reaction to the Exclusive Brethren daring to have political views that opposed her own and publicising them via pamphlets at their own expense.  How dare they!  How offensive!  Chinless scarf-wearers! This is huge, I tell you. 

One would have thought that Destiny's views on the homosexuality being totally immoral was a legitimate perspective (as pointed out, anyone who takes the Scriptures seriously is bound to condemn sodomy and lesbianism in all its forms).  One would also have thought that seeking electoral support for that view, so that it can be codified in the statute book is a perfectly reasonable form of political activity--thoroughly lawful and commendable as far as it goes.

But, we suspect the "money quote" is Farrar's emotive broadside to the effect that Destiny was involved in "forcing its religious beliefs" on all people when it stood for Parliament.  That is what sticks in Farrar's craw.  But this is just specious special pleading.  Every political party that has ever existed since Adam has sought to force its religious beliefs upon others.  That is what lawmaking is all about.  Does Farrar not understand that laws do not tolerate voluntary non-compliance.  Law is force.  Every law forces its particular world-view down the throats of all citizens.  Surely Kiwiblog's doyen would grant that. 

Yes, but religious law is offensive and beyond the pale. So in the matter of sexual ethics and human procreation, some positions apparently reflect religious views, others do not.  Clearly Farrar, being a self-professed irreligious fellow, would presume that all his views on such things are clearly not religious, but secular since he is a secular chappie.  But if a Christian holds a view contrary to his own and seeks electoral support to have that view codified into law, that is completely unacceptable because his view is religious, and Farrar's is not.

So Farrar can impose his religious secularism upon us all via the law book, but he, in the same breath, removes the same rights from religious people.  Only secular views allowed in the public square.  Why?  Well, its my public square; its only for people like me!  What kind of democratic value and philosophy is that?  Some pigs are more equal than others, it would seem down on Farrar's Animal Farm.


His objections to Brian Tamaki are so self-serving and circular that he has shamed himself.  If Farrar, the ardent democrat can only muster the charge of Tamaki trying to force his religion upon us via the ballot box, the special pleading and hypocrisy on display is beneath us all, including himself.

But then again, Farrar gravely tells us that his argument is "a huge one".  For our part we would politely invite Farrar to desist standing on lofty self-serving heights whilst trying to ram Jurgen Habermas's secular "public square" down our throats and, instead, to get serious about democracy--or, at the very least, he owes us both a public confession and an explanation.  It's good for the soul, we are told.