Bill Board Tolerance,: Yeah Right ! !

From Kiwiblog

radvad (393) Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Defacing destroying bill boards happens every election and does not draw such strong language from you David.

I don’t give a toss about the church’s silly billboad, nor do I get my knickers in a twist about its destruction. Churches frequently incur damage without complaining and in one recent case, I think in west Auckland, worked with the offenders. Sarah Palins church was destroyed in an arson attack over a year ago (with people inside) and still no arrests.

I however give a toss when people feed me pap. St Matthews claim they wanted to provoke discussion. Wrong. They wanted attention and did it by mocking a central Christian belief. If a similar bill board appeared mocking another religion’s beliefs they would be the first to cry for “tolerance” and “celebration” of diverse faiths. A tolerance they are not prepared to show themselves.

St M’s also claim some sort of moral high ground but seem to me to be long on confrontation and short of forgiveness, both very “unchristian”.

A pox on both the individuals who destroy private property and also those organisations that cause confrontation by mocking and then try to con us that their motives are pure. Bah humbug.
Popular. Like or Dislike: 55 : 11


andrei (484) Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Censorship phttt that revolting image has gone viral.

Nor is it intolerance – let me just down the road from that Church Auckland’s elite have been guffawing at a play called Christ Almighty!!! which includes such things as St Joseph having sex with the donkey and transvestite angels huk yuk which reveals just how purile Aucklands glitterati are IMHO. And nobody said boo.

No beheadings – we just leave the morons enjoy their boorish entertainment knowing that it reveals how empty and shallow they really are.

I would have personally preferred that billboard remain to stand in condemnation of those who erected it but passions run high – assuming of course that those who erected it who aren’t also those behind the vandalism – always a distinct possibility when dealing with Liberal media whores.

But in no way was that Billboard anything other than a cheap attention grabbing stunt designed to sow discord and unhappiness during one of the Church’s Holy Festivals.

And in that it is mission accomplished
Popular. Like or Dislike: 43 : 12


the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (612) Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

I cant agree

It was a deliberately stupid, provocative and frankly anti-christian billboard put up by a bloody vicar who thought he/she was being all edgy.

I am an atheist myself, but you dont go shitting on your parishoners.

If you want a real analogy, as opposed to the foolish strawmen that you put up. Try this one:

Imagine one of mohammed in bed with his second wife (yes the 9 year old one) put up by the imam just before ramadan, with some smart arse comment aout bedtime stories never having been the same since the marriage.

Thats the level of stupidity this church elevated itself to. A supposedly christian church thought it would be funny at christmas to mock christianity. oh yes, hardy hah hah, very cool, very edgy.

and now the vicar thinks its cool to call an offended parishioner a “fanatic”. If she threw a brick through a window at mcdonalds and burnt a couple of cars, he simply call her a social justice activist, and attempt to understand her point of view.

Yup, no wonder the anglicans are deservedly going down the toilet.
Popular. Like or Dislike: 52 : 7


TripeWryter (200) Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
1 – St Matthew-in-the-City’s vicar is misguided. He doesn’t even believe a central tenet of Christian belief; that Jesus’ father was God himself. That’s like a revolutionary not believing in revolution.

2 – The billboard was attention-seeking. Nothing to do with getting people ‘thinking about Christmas’.

3 – It did, however, serve to provoke the religious, in the same way that Jesus provoked the religious of his time; they conspired to have him crucified.

4 – The religious took offence on behalf of God, despite there being no evidence that God was offended. Was he? Does he care? If the religious are his representatives, they must know what he thinks.

5 – The Bishop of Auckland seemed weak yesterday. He was deploring the billboard, but he didn’t seem to be doing anything more. Aren’t bishops of any stripe, any religion, sovereign in their own dioceses? Couldn’t he have just ordered the thing taken down? He gave the vicar at St Matthew a licence to practise and to preach. Couldn’t he had just withdrawn it? Put the vicar on the next plane out to wherever he came from?

6 – An online magazine headlined its story: ‘Christ, can’t you take a joke?’

Too true.
Vote: 25 5


krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (4565) Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

[DPF: The extremists use the same justification for their actions - the difference is only scale]

Scale indeed. And the difference in that scale is so vast that to associate them one with another is ridiculous. Perhaps these actions are similar because the perpetrators were breathing, or were right handed, or had brown eyes, or … whatever.

In truth the perpetrators of religiously inspired acts are driven by a feeling that they doing what’s right. So too are Greenpeace protestors, MP’s at the trough, and me double parking when I think I’ll only be a minute.

Being driven by a feeling of doing what’s right is not a crime – actually it’s laudable. If a crime results from the feeling then the punishment is matched to the scale of that crime, not to the motivation itself.
Vote: 15 : 3


ZenTiger (189) Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

It has been amazing to see the intolerance on display by some extremist Christians.

Yeah, I’m amazed extremists are so extreme, but I’m equally amazed that all the moderate people remain so moderate through this. What is it with the moderates anyway?

They have applauded the destruction of a church’s private property, because they don’t like the message on display.

Yes, but in fairness only the extremists applauded. The moderates thought it a stupid response to a stupid billboard.

It is only a small way removed from the Islamic extremists who burnt down an Embassy, because they didn’t like the cartoons of a newspaper in a country.

And consensual sex is really only a small way removed from rape. They both involve penetration. And National Party voters that deface a Labour Billboard is only a small step away from murder. And making jokes about Helen Clark’s looks is only a small step away from bad taste. And faux outrage at “Christian intolerance” is only a small step away from advocating them thrown to the lions.

Of course that was a more extreme act, but what they have in common is both sets of people think their God allows them to break the law to try and suppress a message or image they do not approve of. It is the thin end of theocratic rule.

Of course, anyone engaging in a political act is in open defiance of democracy and needs to be executed for treason. It’s the thin edge of a full blown fascist revolution, comrade.

There are many legitimate ways people could take action against the billboard of St Matthew-in-the-City. They include:

* Complain to the Advertising Standards Authority (as Family First did)
* Protest outside St Matthews
* Put up your own billboard with an alternative message
* Lobby for the leadership of St Matthews to be disciplined or sacked by the church hierarchy (if possible)
* Try and have the entire parish booted out of the Anglican Church

But for some reason, only the moderates only explore those avenues. Why are extremists so extreme?

But instead the nutters have won, with their campaign of destruction:

After the latest attack, by an elderly woman with a knife last night, the church said the billboard would not be replaced.

An elderly women with a knife and a pair of knitting needles has put them off, or the vast amount of negative reaction from “moderate” voices?? After the paint over, they were all for putting up another billboard (and maybe they have), but I wouldn’t be surprised if the implications of just how offensive their little media stunt actually is to many people.

The Vicar of St Matthew-in-the-City, Glynn Cardy, said the billboard was “attacked by a knife-wielding Christian fanatic who was then apprehended by a group of homeless people who care about our church. Later in the evening another group of fanatics ripped it down.

There go those fanatics again. Why are they so fanatical? Then again, a fanatic with money simply puts up an offensive billboard. Those sorts of fanatics are easy to spot (due to the size of the billboard and the content of the billboard), but they are fanatical within the law. It’s not illegal to offend people, but it’s ignorant to hide behind “freedom of speech” as the excuse to offend people.

I wonder how the fanatics would feel if someone threw bricks through all the windows at their local church, because someone doesn’t like their message.

We’ll have to catch them and see what they feel, if they go to church and if they realise how stupid they were. But a word of warning – fanatics can be fanatical about things.

It isn’t far removed from the morons who vandalise Jewish graves because they don’t like Judaism.

They weren’t morons David, they were extemist religious fanatics. Don’t hold back now, a vandal isn’t merely a vandal nowadays.

There is no right in New Zealand not to be offended by a religious message.

There is every right and freedom to be offended. You cannot think for one moment you can tell people what they are and are not “allowed” to think about something. There is no right to use ones offense as a justification for action outside the law. Subtle, but an important distinction.

If you are offended, then tough. Either take action under the law, or lump it. But you do not have the right to destroy private property of a church, because you are offended by their message.

Same goes for all lawbreakers, they should be caught and punished in a just manner. No surprises there.

But for all those who cheer on the extremists and vandals, well don’t cry out for sympathy when the same happens to your church.

OK, that’s a few people. What about the thousands of moderates you are now going to lump into your next point?

I mean if the Catholic Church beatifies Pope Pius XII, then it must be legitimate for Jewish activists to vandalise Catholic cathedrals to protest such an offensive move

Yeah right. First you argue that extremists have no right to break the law, now you are suggesting that a third party (the Church and all it’s moderate members) should expect whats coming to them. The Catholic Church has not condoned this vandalism, and it’s thousands of moderate members have not condoned this vandalism. This is a straw man argument you are setting up. Why assume these people are Catholics? Why assume they speak for the Church?

(Pius XII refused to publicly condemn the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews)

A controversial assertion, and you might want to look into this a bit further. : Soviet KGB falsly linked WW2 Pope with Nazis,
Vote: 25 : 4


Redbaiter (8181) Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

“You don’t have a right to vandalise something which you find offensive”

Maybe you cede them that right by posting something designed to provoke such a reaction, and then being unable to defend it when the expected reaction occurs.

[DPF: That sounds like the arguments Muslim extremists used against the Danish cartoons. I believe the rule of law is paramount]
Vote: 7 13


Komata (196) Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

As a Christian I personally found the poster offensive, but as it was St Matthew’s in the City that posted it, I am not surprised in the least.

Sadly that specific church has a very long record of being ‘trendy’, hip. cool, avant-garde and so out there, liberal and with it, (add whatever other ‘freeing’ words you may care to ) dating back to the late 1960’s when a parish priest (name sadly unrecalled – it was a little while ago – with what we would now call ‘liberal tendencies), decided to ‘get with it’ and engage with the flower people, presenting the gospel (as he perceived it) in a new and exciting way to embrace all and everyone – especially the homosexuals, lesbians and homeless.

(It was at the time that the same church was becoming a leader in anti-American and anti-Vietnam War protests, with the same priest being at the forefront of said protests)

The fact that he was diluting the essential Gospel message (that only through a personal acceptance of and relationship-with Jesus Christ as your personal saviour can you have eternal life) was irrelevant – cool was all and he fervently went all out to embrace the hippies, their culture and their ilk (pot, drug use – the whole circus) in the name of ‘Liberal’ and ‘Revolutionary’ theology – enthusiastically supported by his Bishop (Brown?).

His actions were totally acceptable to the new Zealand Anglican Synod since it was after all, another means of outreach and a chance to reach the ‘lost’. That, at least was the reason why the church (St Mathews) suddenly became a leader in liberal Christianity in New Zealand, and touted itself as being at the ‘cutting edge’ of Christianity in New Zealand. They were also totally ‘accepting’ (ie condoning-of) of the lifestyle of homosexuals and lesbians.

Predictably, with the accolades of liberals (mostly non-Christians, incidentally) St Matthews has since continued on that path with a succession of ‘liberal’ priests who have increasingly diluted the Christian message over the years, while still being supported by their local Bishop and moving even further away from the essential tenets of Christianity (along with the rest of the ‘Western’ Anglican church). All other faiths, especially Islam (a faith which is diametrically opposed-to and is always in confrontation-with Christianity) are of course welcome (as are Gays and Lesbians) and their beliefs incorporated into services (so that no-one feels left out)

Evidently, at least one member of the congregation has at last decided that ‘enough is enough’ and decided to take things into her own hands – the fact that she is 70-years plus being an indictment of the church, since evidently the ‘younger’ members are so happy with the diluted faith they are being fed that they don’t see there is a problem.
Others, evidently from other churches have also felt the same way, and have also defaced the poster, and since the ‘church’ hierarchy evidently doesn’t see that there is a problem, all power to the people concerned. But a ‘knife wielding Christian ‘FANATIC’? I think not – rather a devout, Bible-believing elderly Christian lady who has decided to take a stand. I wonder what she will be charged with?
Vote: 21 5


LiberalismIsASin (151) Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 10:17 pm

I have followed this debate and refrained from commenting, I mean what is the point? If you are a christian you are considered a legitimate target, liberals consider it a duty to denigrate the beliefs of all religions, epecially christians, or at least its a gallant protest. But seriously DPF is a hypocrite of the highest order. If a church put up a billboard that was as offensive to sodomites, who he champions, he would be lecturing us about the limits of free speech. St Matthews is the kind of church that can no longer be considered a church, everywhere and always they battle against the cause of Christ.
Vote: 15 1


malcolm (747) Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

If you are a christian you are considered a legitimate target, liberals consider it a duty to denigrate the beliefs of all religions, especially christians, or at least its a gallant protest.

Please stop feeling sorry for yourself. If you want your religion to be respected, then make a case for why it deserves respect. No special pleading and no playing the victim card. There is no automatic respect for ideas just because they’re special to you. And be careful with the victim mentality; it stops you thinking about your faith in a rational way and helps to keep you inside the bubble.

Do you have automatic respect for Islam, Scientology, Church of LDS and witchdoctors? Of course not. You probably think they’re deluded or mad. And you’re most probably right.
Vote: 5 8