The Right Not To Be Offended

Albert Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary comments on what he terms the "culture of offendedness". Mohler places a high value on freedom, while at the same time not compromising on the Christian faith. This is something that very few Christians hold to, let alone are able to articulate. Voltaire had it right when he said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." At the same time though, I can't do better than quote from one of my favourite songs by Kutless, "There's nothing you can do to shut me up, to shut me out when I'm speaking the truth". Anyway, I could rave on and on about freedom and truth - but for now I want to share Albert Mohler's latest excellent blog post - a few excerpts of which are below...

A new and unprecedented right is now the central focus of legal, procedural, and cultural concern in many corridors--a supposed right not to be offended. The cultural momentum behind this purported "right" is growing fast, and the logic of this movement has taken hold in many universities, legal circles, and interest groups...

...These days, it is the secularists who seem to be most intent on pushing a proposed right never to be offended by confrontation with the Christian Gospel, Christian witness, or Christian speech and symbolism. This motivation lies behind the incessant effort to remove all symbols, representations, references, and images related to Christianity from the public square. The very existence of a large cross, placed on government property as a memorial, outside San Diego, California, has become a major issue in the courts, and now in Congress. Those pressing for the removal of the cross claim that they are offended by the fact that they are forced to see this Christian symbol from time to time...

...The very idea of civil society assumes the very real possibility that individuals may at any time be offended by another member of the community. Civilization thrives when individuals and groups seek to minimize unnecessary offendedness, while recognizing that some degree of real or perceived offendedness is the cost the society must pay for the right to enjoy the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to speak one's mind...

...Given our mandate to share the Gospel and to speak openly and publicly about Jesus Christ and the Christian faith, Christians must understand a particular responsibility to protect free speech and to resist this culture of offendedness that threatens to shut down all public discourse.
Of course, the right for Christians to speak publicly about Jesus Christ necessarily means that adherents of other belief systems will be equally free to present their truth claims in an equally public manner. This is simply the cost of religious liberty...

Click here to read the entire article.

Dr. Glenn Peoples, PhD will be giving a talk entitled "Chasing the Justificatory Goalpost: Public Justification and Religious Beliefs" on Thursday night at the University of Canterbury - a topic very similar to the thrust of Mohler's article. If you're free Thursday night, click here for all the information on this event.

Shoot First, Police Arrive Later

"Zhuofeng 'Titan' Jiang, a Tokoroa takeaway owner who shot a masked gunman in the leg after wrestling a semi-automatic .22 rifle off him could end up being charged for defending himself.
Aotea Chinese Takeaways owner Zhuofeng "Titan" Jiang, 25, grabbed the rifle as the gunman pointed it at Mr Jiang's 19-year-old cousin and demanded money from the till about 9.45pm on Monday.
The gunman had already fired a warning shot into the floor. Another shot went off as the men wrestled with the rifle.
When Mr Jiang got hold of the rifle he fired two shots, one into the floor, and another into the man's leg, to stop him from being attacked.
The gunman screamed in pain after being shot and fled.
Mr Jiang said yesterday that he was not a hero. "I was not scared. I would do it again. I hate these people. I will never give them any money." - Dom Post 29/4/09

Titan is a sterling example of an independent and free-thinking citizen. A "fat man, 6ft tall, wearing dark-coloured clothing." points a semi-auto Sterling 20 rifle at his kid cousin, and he responds with decisive skill, disarming the low-life and putting him out of action. However this comment from the Detective Senior Sergeant Todd Pearce of the NZ Police is alarming,

"This situation could easily have resulted in a fatality and it could have easily been one of victims that had been shot or killed... Fighting back, when firearms are involved, dramatically increases the dangers to everyone present and should not be considered or attempted." - NZ Herald 28/4/09

To heck with that. If you find yourself in a situation like Titan, it is up to you to weigh up the situation and determine whether or not you have a decent chance of overpowering the attacker. As a citizen, you have the freedom to defend yourself and the other innocent people caught up in an assault. It is an incredibly dangerous mindset to fall into, that we put our trust in the police (the state) to save us whenever we are under threat of physical harm.
Anyway, the police apparently took 18 minutes to turn up on the scene - by which time the incident was over and the attacker had run away. In most assault cases, all the police can really do is to turn up with the body-bags. I am in no way dissing the Police-force; they do a great job, but they are not omnipresent.

ACTually Authoritarian

"This isn't an agreement cobbled together out of self-interest, but one developed through our shared vision to create a better and brighter future for New Zealand." - Rodney Hide in ACT's press release, National-ACT Confidence & Supply Agreement Announcement, 16/11/2008.

In a 4 March press release, Rodney Hide says "Garden centres can open on Easter Sunday but the Mitre 10 hardware shop nearby, which also sells plants, cannot. That is ridiculous... People just want to get on with their lives unhindered by silly rules." That's a classic ACT position - government should keep out of people's lives.

The Prohibition of Gang Insignia Bill...

Lindsay Mitchell notes that both Rodney Hide and Heather Roy were strongly opposed to the gang-patch ban as late in the game as September 2008 - and yet today, both are singing a different tune. The ACT party is supporting National's Chester Borrows' gang-patch ban, presumably to buy National's support for ACT's 3 Strikes and You're Out policy. It's a given that some compromise is necessary if you want to get anywhere in Parliament - however ACT's support of National's bill is unacceptable. There are two major problems with the proposed law. Firstly, it is restricting the freedom of citizens; in their freedom of expression. They will not be allowed to display gang-patches on their clothes or vehicles. Secondly, the bill is unjust because it will only apply to people living within a certain area of New Zealand. Only those living in the Wanganui District will be subject to this law currently being pushed through back down in Wellington.


Samuel Dennis saliently observes, "This gang patches law is not only unprincipled, it makes life a lot harder for the police. Currently the gang members make policing easy by wearing nice uniforms saying in effect "Check me, I probably did it". If they are forced to wear civilian clothes, crime fighting will be far harder."

What is the argument against displaying gang insignia on your person, or on your vehicle in public? Surely any such argument is one that will lead down the slippery slope of restricting people's freedom of expression - for the greater good. ACT is letting itself down by supporting this authoritarian bill.

"We accept that allowing the Wanganui District Council to make these bylaws could be perceived to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but we think for the safety and security of the residents of Wanganui these powers are desirable." says the select committee looking after the bill. Ahem, excuse me... did I hear that right?

What's next? Is ACT going to support a move to ban t-shirts that have a Christian message on them, or that say something along the lines of "Abortion is Murder"?

Quid Est Libertas?

What is freedom? Earlier today, Rick and I were discussing this question.  As it became clear, we have different understandings of what it means to be free, or to be more specific, what it means to be truly free to make a choice.  First I'll explain what I believe freedom of choice means, following this with my understanding of Rick's position.  Then a brief example to clear things up a bit, because it may be a bit confusing.

;)

Andy.  Freedom can be most simply expressed as a person's inherent free will.  It is the ability to choose between right and wrong, or between life and death.  Noone can ultimately take away our freedom. Of course, we speak of such things as the Anti-Smacking Law, or the late Electoral Finance Act as taking away our freedom, however it would be more correct to say that such unjust laws give our freedom new parameters.  In Mel Gibson's timeless epic, Braveheart, William Wallace famously says "they'll never take our freedom".  Towards the end of the movie when Wallace is on the rack being tortured to death, he is given the chance to ask for mercy.  Instead he lets forth the haunting but rallying cry, "FREEDOM!!!" before the executioner's axe swings down.  To William Wallace - at least in this film, freedom was the ability to choose between right and wrong, duty or compromise - whatever the circumstances or consequences might be.

Rick.  Freedom is the ability to be able to make a choice without threat of adverse consequences.  I'm not sure if it would matter whether or not the choice was either logically sound or morally good.  Also, I'm not sure whether the adverse consequences would necessarily have to be initiated by another person or group of people.  Otherwise you could say that because walking off a 20-storey building would bring about adverse consequences, your freedom was therefore impeded.  As you can see, I am not arguing for this position very well, firstly because I don't believe it, and secondly because I don't yet fully understand it.  Rick will no doubt clear up any confusion in his response on his own blog.

Example.  "The soliders" bust into your place and tell you that they're there to enforce a new law.  The new law states that no citizen may hold a religious belief, and further, must officially declare their refutation of any previously held religious convictions - on pain of death.  I think Rick would say that in this situation, you don't have any freedom.  On the other hand, I think that you absolutely do have freedom - even if your choice results in your death.

It may be that we're actually talking about different things but using the same word - I'm not sure.  What do you think?

My New Friend

I only learned of Alexander Solzhenitsyn yesterday, when his death was announced. I have learned that he was a man who stood up against evil, and sacrificed much in the cause of righteousness and freedom. Now I need to get a copy of his book, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and find out more about this great man. I never met him, but I am sure I will be able to catch up with him one day.

Doug Philips of Vision Forum writes at his blog,

“Today, Vision Forum Ministries and freedom-loving Christians all over the world mourn the death of the man most responsible for revealing the evil of the anti-Christian regime of Joseph Stalin and waging war against a machine of Marxist oppression that caused the death of tens of millions.

“Tortured and persecuted within Stalin’s death camps, Solzhenitsyn nonetheless endured, secretly authoring his greatest work, The Gulag Archipelago, on scrounged toilet paper. In the years that followed, Solzhenitsyn emerged as the single most important anti-communist voice of freedom in the world. But for Solzhenitsyn’s relentless campaign to bring the truth of Marxist tyranny to the public forefront, untold millions more might have died. During the Cold War, his message was pivotal in strengthening the resolve of the West to stand firm against Soviet oppression. In all, he would publish twenty-five books, not including plays and numerous speeches.

“Though Solzhenitsyn was a devoted Russian nationalist, he was also a grateful resident of the United States during his years in exile from his homeland. That gratitude took the form of the message of a prophet committed to helping Americans stay the course by remembering their own Christian foundations and rejecting the destructive trends of humanism and secularism. There were times at the height of the Cold War in which Solzhenitsyn — a Russian — appeared the most outspoken conscience of the West, ever reminding us of our Christian foundations and warning us of the consequences of moral weakness and lack of resolve when engaging international Marxism. For this he was often despised by the press, by pundits, and politicians.

Click here to read the rest of Doug's post, which includes an amazing quote from Solzhenitsyn's Harvard speech.

Marketing Bill Passed into Law (satire)

The Unthinkable has happened. Parliament has passed the Marketing Bill into Law.  The Marketing Bill, as most of you will be aware, exists to create what the bill's sponsor Labour MP Annette King terms "an even playing field".  What she means by this is that the amount of money that a business can spend on marketing per year should be restricted.  Further, any individual wishing to promote a company which they have found useful, must first register with the Marketing Commission to be allowed to do this.  And even then, the amount of time that they may spend promoting a company to friends and family will be restricted to 120 minutes per year.  Below I have the transcript of Annette King's introduction in the third reading of the bill.

Annette King - 18 December, 2007

Third Reading of the Marketing Finance Bill

"I move that the Marketing Finance Bill be now read a third time.

This Bill has been a contentious one, its passage marked by acrimonious debate and a campaign of misinformation. A major newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, devoted almost a month to attacking the Bill and the Government in a campaign the like of which has not been seen since a Labour Government legislated to stop tobacco advertising. One can’t help but wonder if the motives for the current campaign are not very similar to the last one.

Much has been said and written about the Bill. In yesterday’s Dom Post a letter to the editor summed it up for many people: Business is not “one dollar, one sale”.
An article in last week’s Otago Daily Times made some relevant points. I quote: “As much as we like to imagine that freedom of advertising is an absolute, it isn’t. There are several laws that proscribe it.” The article went on to say that a leading opponent of the Bill believed an ideal business environment would let money be free to talk whenever, and however loud, it likes. The truth was, the article said, that this man “has bags of money and no hesitation in using any amount of it to try to influence the purchasing decisions of the consumer.”

This Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensure that wealthy business-owners do not have more advertising power than small-players. The Commerce Select Committee, the Government, and Parliament during committee stages have listened to concerns about the Marketing Finance Bill, and have not made any changes that improve the Bill.

Madam Speaker, this Bill is about creating a fair, transparent business environment that puts all businesses on a level playing field with clearly defined rules and safeguards to protect the small-players from being drowned out due to the higher marketing budgets of larger companies. We do not want to see the Americanisation of our market.

This Bill does not restrict freedom of marketing. It simply restricts rights to ‘purchase’ sales through advertising. This is being done to safeguard our market by keeping to a minimum the undue influence of money in marketing. That’s what a level playing field means, and the Government believes most New Zealanders understand and support this principle.

The Bill makes changes that will help to bring New Zealand into line with other comparable democracies, such as Russia under the rule of Stalin, and Zimbabwe under the rule of Mugabe. These reforms are important, as fair and transparent advertising-campaigns are fundamental to our market...

...Madam Speaker, this Bill does not restrict freedom of advertising. It simply restricts rights to ‘purchase’ sales through advertising. This is being done to safeguard our market by keeping to a minimum the undue influence of money in advertising.

If we want to protect the ability of all New Zealanders to participate in, and grow the economy, we must ensure that businesses with limited resources can realistically compete with those with deep pockets, by restricting how much individual businesses may spend on advertising their goods or services.
I commend this Bill to the House."

To read the full speech, please click here.

The bill passed, with
Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1.
Noes 57 New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field (Gordon Copeland absent).

The Soldier

from www.whaleoil.co.nz

This was taken from The Contact the magazine of Vietnam VeteransIt was written by Father Dennis O'Brian.

The Soldier

It is the soldier, not the reporter,who gives us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who gives us the freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organiser, who gives us thefreedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flagand whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

-----------------------------

But what is it we are always hearing in the news? US Soldiers accused of torturing hostages, they rave on and on and on about how terrible they are, blissfully ignoring their right to say so which has for the large part come about by the bloodshed of soldiers long before their time. - Andy