Scoop Feedback: Religion, Democracy and Carbon
The following is a selection of feedback and other unsolicited email received by Scoop recently. The opinions they contain do not necessarily reflect those of Scoop.
They do not appear in any particular order.
Carbon Emissions Cop-out
The Greenhouse Policy Coalition saying if businesses are made to offset their carbon emissions, some of the businesses they represent may be forced to relocate to parts of Asia where there is no charge on carbon emissions. These sort of companies that run away and hide from their responsibilities to the worlds environment, to continue to pollute the world from a new location. Soon find themselves isolated and condemned by world opinion and fail. Those companies who take on their responsibilities stay and invest, look for new ways to offset their carbon emissions, working with and inventing new technologies, being the innervators and leaders of our ever changing world will succeed. The Greenhouse Policy Coalition members Holcim Cement; New Zealand Steel; the Coal Association; Fonterra and their shareholders need to focus on their long term bottom line not their short term.
This anti smacking thing is getting more confusing all the time! First the impression given through the media was that, to reduce child abuse, Sue Bradford's proposed bill would protect children from any kind of physical correction.
When I joined the outcry against such stupidity, Anita Smith, the Electorate Secretary to Steve Chadwick, MP for Rotorua, E-mailed me in part saying, "It has always been a crime to smack a child, any child. It’s the crime of assault. For over 110 years, smacking a child could make a parent liable to a term of imprisonment of up to 2 years, and sometimes more.
"For more than a century, sending a child to its bedroom is the crime of Kidnapping. It makes the parent liable to a prison term of 14 years; as does the mere act of holding the child against its wishes to do such necessary tasks as dressing."
This absolutely unbelievable! I am glad that wisdom has prevailed and the police have shown this law the contempt it deserves. When I was a brat, no one protected me from the punishment I deserved. Our Head Master in Greerton Primary School (a suburb of Tauranga) had a strap in his draw and the Assistant Head at Tauranga College had a cane. There was never so much as a whisper that it was against the law to use them. We children knew where our limits were and we were not surprised when we were punished. Getting the strap or the cane did not make us violent, but rather taught us to submit to rightful authority.
Normal parents only smack their children as a last resort. Does Sue Bradford want the police to rush to the defense of our darling monsters and protect them when they are at their worst? If the Government makes them "bullet-proof", is the Government prepared to be responsible for how they turn out?
It is mind-boggling to think that our children will be allowed to get away with anything, but their devoted parents will be punished for trying to raise them to be good citizens (at least, I don't get the impression that the Government will wink at any disobedience to their authority).
Our Government has a disturbing track record of attacking Christian values and this proposed legislation is thinly disguised "hate literature." The Bible teaches that we are all born sinful (Psalm 51:5) and that therefore we need to be taught how to live and we need to be punished when we stray (Proverbs 13:24). Families, communities and nations have been built on the foundation of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Sue Bradford's bill attacks the Christian home and the authority of Christian parents (by lumping them in with child-abusers). Trying to build a society without a Christian foundation has already been tried in the French Revolution - the bloodiest chapter in French history!
Between the law of 110 years ago and Sue Bradford's proposed bill, the Government is not looking very smart about raising children. Instead of tying the hands of struggling parents, why doesn't the Government do something positive through children's TV programs to instill good character traits?
Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking legislation has some very serious ramifications that must not be overlooked. I won't linger here to point out that while the Government is up in arms about the few children who die at the hands of their parents, it subsidizes the killing of thousands of unborn babies every year.
In this democratic (?) country our Government is trying to bulldoze its will against the will of 80% or more of the people. This is dictatorship!
About 30 years ago, the late Dr Francis Schaeffer, in his series of ten films, "How Should We Then Live?" said, "We are only one step short of the totalitarian state."
On what basis did he say this? He explained, "The society that has no absolutes [because they have rejected God’s absolutes in the Ten Commandments] becomes itself absolute."
God says, "Thou shalt not kill", period. But we say, It’s OK to kill unwanted babies before birth. (If we reject God’s absolutes, we must replace them with our own.)
What we need to recognize is that our problems stem from rejecting God and His absolutes and His plan of salvation. Parents who kill their naughty children are just as bad as their children (and may be worse because some of the children aren’t old enough to be naughty.)
What we all need is God’s saving grace in our hearts and in our homes. He is the only One Who can save us from our sinful selves. If we don’t want the Government in our homes and if we don’t want dictatorship, we have to have self-government, as Dr Schaeffer said, "Freedom is only safe with the Christian ethic." Either we choose to live by God’s grace in obedience to His absolutes, or we will have to put up with the Government’s inconsistent absolutes forced on us.
It is time to seek the Lord!
i wonder if scoop has looked into how the twin towers fell in new york. could your media be financed by other people????
The Editor, Scoop
...The Justice and Electoral Committee has considered Petition 2005/69 of Steve Baron on behalf of Better Democracy New Zealand, which requests that the House note that 20,209 people signed a petition seeking a referendum on whether citizens initiated referenda should be binding on the New Zealand Government, and has no matters to bring to the attention of the House...
The concerns of 20,209 people are dismissed in one paragraph. Now there's real democracy for you!
Steve Baron - Better Democracy NZ