Even better! Thanks Gary. Apart from in the spheres of law and education, it's the same kind of mentality that we currently see politically in many of our Council's around the country wherein the introduction of Maori Wards are also being pushed. In the discerning light of day - morally, ethnically, legally (when considered other than in our Electoral Acts), financially, practically, and philosophically such is fundamentally wrong at every turn, but woke group think and pressure seems to be only too prevalent.
Thank you Gary for the work you are doing in this area of madness. As an ardent theist with an interest in science I can attest that traditional Maori spirituality is basically a crock of proverbial. That this animistic nonsense is forced upon us by Government is a travesty. There is no place for it. Taniwhas & river gods are the obvious rot, but the more subtle nonsense is also completely inappropriate for our secular society based on Christian traditions.
Health NZ provides the following guidance:
A guide to karakia
Health New Zealand have shared the following guidance about karakia, an important part of daily mahi here at Te Toka Tumai.
“…Karakia are used to increase the spiritual goodwill of a gathering, to ensure the success of a project, and to enhance the mana and tapu of people and their environment.
Karakia is part of our tikanga, and it is appropriate to include them at the beginning and end of meetings or gatherings, and before eating food.”
So saying Maori prayers will ‘ensure the success of a project’? Oh really? Sam’s mum’s cataracts may have been cured (worth a listen - Tim Minchin’s ‘Thank you God’) but to formally claim this as an efficacious part of our Health Care effort is just utter crap. This rubbish needs to be excised asap.
Thanks again Gary for another outstanding commentary on this important topic.
Can I suggest that the perspective being adopted in all of this, science, law, local government policies and so forth, amounts to an extreme position on "inclusion", of the DEI sort. Not so much a call to believe in tooth fairies, but to (over) indulge in the child's belief, by conducting a dialogue that plays along with the child's view of the world (pandering). Where in this case the "child" is just as likely to be sitting across the table at a council meeting, in a board room, in a court room or wherever. Whereas the reality is of course is that the "child" should not be in those places, but we can't say that because it would be being "exclusive" and quite possibly racist. Then we could be cancelled! As Jordan Peterson has remarked, multiculturalism is a miracle of stupidity.
Yes. Sadly Gary the robustness needed to face down misguided ideological fanaticism appears to be in short supply in most of our current political leaders.
Saint Nicholas is not a story. He was a real Orthodox Christian Bishop. He attended the Council of Nicaea 325. His whole body remains uncorrupted today in Bari, Italy, and continually produces a sweet smelling myrrh. He has appeared to many over the centuries, and continues to help those who call on him. It is believed that he secretly delivered gifts of bags of money to a destitute widower with no means to provide for an honourable marriage for his three daughters. On the third occasion (for the benefit of the youngest daughter), Bishop Nicholas was discovered by the curious father - otherwise we would never have known what had happened, or who had secretly thrown the bags of gold coins into the family's house late at night.
But if we want to fully revive the old Maori spirituality, that would involve living constantly at the behest of dark malevolent in-human forces. It would lead inevitably to the practice of 'utu,' and perhaps to the ritual consumption of human flesh. W.T. Ratana, for one, struggled for decades to free the Maori people from that sort of spiritual enslavement. It was called 'anti-tohunga-ism.' Some recent movies give just a few hints of what life would be like under the control of evil spirits, for example, The Convert, the Dead Lands, Ka Whawhai Tonu. The last one showed a young girl kept in a hole in the ground, she was possessed of a spirit, bound to act as an oracle, to provide supernatural guidance on military strategy. Ok, it seems to be a pretense in the movie, but if it were real... And don't think for a moment that this isn't real, or couldn't happen here in NZ, simply because we are 'rational,' or 'modern.' Obviously, it was practiced in the past, and still is practiced today quite openly in parts of Africa, for example. It's called 'witch-doctorism.' It's not a joke. Nor is it simply a mythological way of explaining natural phenomena,
But it's not clear at all that those who are promoting a role for 'tikanga' in the courts, or in natural resource management, have any inkling at all of the direction that they could be taking us.... or what could be the consequences of it. Though I suspect that those who performed ceremonies to offer food sacrifices to the 7 Matariki stars at Te Papa understood quite clearly exactly what they were doing. And those who made the Air New Zealand in-flight safety video, proclaiming that 'Tane made the world, including the air that we breathe,' also knew exactly what they were doing. Of course, they are free to believe and to practice a faith of their choosing, but to use state resources to promote this publicly, or at a public venue (such as a national museum) is not acceptable. We have a Christian Head of State, an obligation to maintain that, and a long and deep tradition of Christianity within Maoridom, with a clear rejection of tohunga-istic practices, of which Ratana was only one prominent proponent,
Well, William, I know for a fact that the only Santa filling my children's Christmas stockings was me, and I didn't come down the chimney!
I agree that *some* of those promoting a role for 'tikanga' in the courts, or in natural resource management have no inkling at all of the direction that they could be taking us or what could be the consequences of it, but there are others who do know because their intentions have been expressed (He Puapua, for example). Not the directions or consequences you suggest as possibilities but nevertheless not those of a free and democratic society.
I note in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, section 203A, as amended in May 2024, does not at 203 A (2) (b) permit parties to question other parties witnesses, or at 203A (2) (c) enable cross examination by other parties. If the Licensing Committee does not question a point given by a witness on any aspect, presumably it is accepted?
Given the promulgation in May this year, the previous government is not accountable.
We then see at 203A (2) (d) that tikanga is to be incorporated into hearings and at (e) Submissions
may be made in Maori.
In 204 The Authority does have ability to cross examine. Does this not leave the local Licensing Committee hearings fettered somewhat by not having the benefit of witnesses being questioned and cross examined. Given that tikanga is facilitated, the limitation on questioning and cross examination at the initial hearing on a matter is a burden on applicants who may be facing objections.
All I can say is that this is another piece of stupid legislation which exists because irrationality has been tolerated. It has to stop and be reversed.
I wonder what is the difference between soil and dirt. What’s the difference between H2O and a river? It seems to me that there is a recognition that rivers and soils are living ecosystems. Taking an engineering perspective on rivers by damming them, treating them as sewers, altering the courses of their natural flow etc is coming back to bite us. The degradation of rivers and soils around the world comes from the attitude taken towards them. We’re already seeing the failures of the so called objective view of our living environment to grapple with human induced climate change. Perhaps Maoridom’s perspectives are more humble, less exploitative dare I say more loving. The great thing about science is that it proceeds by falsification. Maybe it’s time to admit that this latest god is not omnipotent and omniscient.
The argument you’re trying to make is about the separation of church and state. Unfortunately your arguments are weak and ineffective - you’re preaching to the choir and not winning anyone over.
Comparing religion to Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is a straw man argument. It is a logical fallacy and plainly intended to insult Maori and religious people. You think simplistic false analogies will make anyone change their mind? Clearly you think spiritually inclined people and the Maori culture are stupid.
If you’re just looking for clicks and a pat on the back then keep doing what you’re doing. But if you actually want to make a difference and convince Maori and others about the merits of the separation of church and state then you need a better strategy.
Do you know what a steel man argument is? It requires a deep understanding of the opposing view. Unfortunately you’re no where near that.
Imagine if you argued that Christmas is meaningless/stupid/irrational and needs to be removed from the law because Santa is not real and Jesus was a primitive deluded supernaturalist who didn’t know where the Sun went at night. Is that a winning argument? You think that would work? I imagine NZ would tell you to get stuffed and leave our traditions (tikanga) alone. NZ understands your argument, many probably agree, but the cultural component wins.
So when you say to Maori that taniwha are BS then you will find the facts are unimportant and the cultural component wins. Maori aren’t going to change for you.
Tikanga in law is not about facts. It is about culture. Harping on about facts won’t get you anywhere. You should make an argument that Maori culture is better off when church and state are separate.
That’s a hard argument to make and you will need to approach it with deep understanding and respect. Ask for guidance from Chris Finlayson or Winston Peters or Shane Jones or anyone who understands both cultures and the current tension between them. Culture, like politics, is a deep topic and it needs more than a “because science” approach.
"Tikanga in law is not about facts. It is about culture. Harping on about facts won’t get you anywhere." Thank you, Peter. I guess it's a difference between reality and the fantasy aspects of culture. The more this country goes down the fantasy road, the more backward it will become. You may be right that you cannot persuade the irrational by rational argument, but at least you can try. It is not an option to try to defeat the irrational by subscribing to irrationality or pretending to do so (like believing or pretending to believe in taniwha).
Facts versus fantasy may be one helpful approach Gary. Tower jumping was not a helpful way to learn to fly. Yet I’m intrigued that our materialistic culture (I don’t say just scientific) has these past decades itself descended into the fantastical more and more -Twilght films/shows, the occult etc. So what’s it about the human psyche that seeks both facts and also sheer meaning?! For often meaning may use facts (scientific or historical) yet employs them reaching higher, towards a more transcendent realm. The crux however is always our own human questing versus the possibility of that ‘transcendent’ Questing as well … downward shall we say …?
It behoves me to begin a conversation about this intricate and complex matter. Not least as there are in our 21st century some extraordinarily intelligent people who happen to be also religious believers of one kind or another. Of course, it is easier to be a follower of certain religious traditions rather than others and also be a competent and sophisticated scientist, in your contemporary sense of the word, without having, shall we say, a schizoid worldview.
May I introduce you to one such individual? His name is Alister McGrath. There is more than one site from which one can access his writings and biography, but here is his own personal site: Alister McGrath – The website of the Oxford writer Alister McGrath (copy and paste!)
As you can readily see, his writings are extensive and pitched at different levels of readership. This is particularly important when trying to broach the subject you engage with. Let me say straight away that I am extremely sympathetic with what you seek, but wish to refine quite a bit how we try and get there.
Given the complexity and rich traditions that we all need to quarry, a better approach is not through the comments of a Substack thread, but two or three very good hearty meals with excellent bottles of wine, et cetera. I happen to live in the Canterbury region and may I be given to understand you are considerably further north! Are you ever likely to be in the SI? I do travel to Auckland from time to time when I am pursuing one particular role.
A place to start with Alister is his abbreviated version of his three volume tome, A Scientific Theology (2001/2/3): The Science of God (Eerdmans, 2004). He’s also a few later texts directly addressing the interface of science and religion, plus natural theology. All in all, as one may discern from notably his videos with interlocutors and ‘opponents’, he’s no slouch and very quick witted.
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant famously said, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." Despite that, he accepted the world of sense perception as the world which could be known. I expect there are few who hold to faith when the article of faith is contradicted by what is known (knowledge derived from sense perception which includes the use of technology to expand the reach of sense perception as in my example about the ever-increasing knowledge in the field of cosmology).
The area for faith is delimited by what is known. Faith can exist only in respect of that which is outside what is known. There is room for faith in God outside what is known. I happen not to have that faith, but I do not deny to those who have it the right to have it. However, it is a different matter when the article of faith is contradicted by what is known. For example, inanimate things such as a river cannot spawn a living thing such as a human being. Rainfall is not produced by a god, but by natural processes. It is irrational to hold that faith displaces that which is known, for example to hold that natural processes are displaced by faith in a rain god.
Sure thing Gary; Kant used his own version of dualism, which has been expressed in various guises over our western history of thinking, Ancient Hellenism, Medieval, and now post Kantian, paving the way for that dichotomy between private (values) and public (facts). YET any form of knowing is governed by the nature of the object(s) of knowing, which nature is slowly unveiled by a twin process of empirical-theoretical (back to McGrath - or TF Torrance) investigation. Always employing degrees of faith necessarily. Yet again, this very process is hampered also by what we now call “plausibility structures” (Beger) or the “social imaginary” (Taylor). This is where Peter’s line of discussion comes re “culture”. A scientific culture has taken centuries to emerge, while of course many traditional cultures have their own engagements with their environments. And the last few centuries have witnessed clashes between them, from Spanish through to British. Our own contemporary clashes are just another iteration - with few having the historical cultural epistemological tools to better appraise. The result? Power politics - often now via the very latest technological tools of mass persuasion ;-) Which ‘interested’ parties are quick to deploy!
Even better! Thanks Gary. Apart from in the spheres of law and education, it's the same kind of mentality that we currently see politically in many of our Council's around the country wherein the introduction of Maori Wards are also being pushed. In the discerning light of day - morally, ethnically, legally (when considered other than in our Electoral Acts), financially, practically, and philosophically such is fundamentally wrong at every turn, but woke group think and pressure seems to be only too prevalent.
Thank you Gary for the work you are doing in this area of madness. As an ardent theist with an interest in science I can attest that traditional Maori spirituality is basically a crock of proverbial. That this animistic nonsense is forced upon us by Government is a travesty. There is no place for it. Taniwhas & river gods are the obvious rot, but the more subtle nonsense is also completely inappropriate for our secular society based on Christian traditions.
Health NZ provides the following guidance:
A guide to karakia
Health New Zealand have shared the following guidance about karakia, an important part of daily mahi here at Te Toka Tumai.
“…Karakia are used to increase the spiritual goodwill of a gathering, to ensure the success of a project, and to enhance the mana and tapu of people and their environment.
Karakia is part of our tikanga, and it is appropriate to include them at the beginning and end of meetings or gatherings, and before eating food.”
So saying Maori prayers will ‘ensure the success of a project’? Oh really? Sam’s mum’s cataracts may have been cured (worth a listen - Tim Minchin’s ‘Thank you God’) but to formally claim this as an efficacious part of our Health Care effort is just utter crap. This rubbish needs to be excised asap.
Thanks again Gary for another outstanding commentary on this important topic.
Can I suggest that the perspective being adopted in all of this, science, law, local government policies and so forth, amounts to an extreme position on "inclusion", of the DEI sort. Not so much a call to believe in tooth fairies, but to (over) indulge in the child's belief, by conducting a dialogue that plays along with the child's view of the world (pandering). Where in this case the "child" is just as likely to be sitting across the table at a council meeting, in a board room, in a court room or wherever. Whereas the reality is of course is that the "child" should not be in those places, but we can't say that because it would be being "exclusive" and quite possibly racist. Then we could be cancelled! As Jordan Peterson has remarked, multiculturalism is a miracle of stupidity.
Perhaps, Ron and thanks for the appreciation. My point is that the pandering has to stop, and it needs to be stated robustly.
Yes. Sadly Gary the robustness needed to face down misguided ideological fanaticism appears to be in short supply in most of our current political leaders.
Hang on a minute there, mate,
Saint Nicholas is not a story. He was a real Orthodox Christian Bishop. He attended the Council of Nicaea 325. His whole body remains uncorrupted today in Bari, Italy, and continually produces a sweet smelling myrrh. He has appeared to many over the centuries, and continues to help those who call on him. It is believed that he secretly delivered gifts of bags of money to a destitute widower with no means to provide for an honourable marriage for his three daughters. On the third occasion (for the benefit of the youngest daughter), Bishop Nicholas was discovered by the curious father - otherwise we would never have known what had happened, or who had secretly thrown the bags of gold coins into the family's house late at night.
But if we want to fully revive the old Maori spirituality, that would involve living constantly at the behest of dark malevolent in-human forces. It would lead inevitably to the practice of 'utu,' and perhaps to the ritual consumption of human flesh. W.T. Ratana, for one, struggled for decades to free the Maori people from that sort of spiritual enslavement. It was called 'anti-tohunga-ism.' Some recent movies give just a few hints of what life would be like under the control of evil spirits, for example, The Convert, the Dead Lands, Ka Whawhai Tonu. The last one showed a young girl kept in a hole in the ground, she was possessed of a spirit, bound to act as an oracle, to provide supernatural guidance on military strategy. Ok, it seems to be a pretense in the movie, but if it were real... And don't think for a moment that this isn't real, or couldn't happen here in NZ, simply because we are 'rational,' or 'modern.' Obviously, it was practiced in the past, and still is practiced today quite openly in parts of Africa, for example. It's called 'witch-doctorism.' It's not a joke. Nor is it simply a mythological way of explaining natural phenomena,
But it's not clear at all that those who are promoting a role for 'tikanga' in the courts, or in natural resource management, have any inkling at all of the direction that they could be taking us.... or what could be the consequences of it. Though I suspect that those who performed ceremonies to offer food sacrifices to the 7 Matariki stars at Te Papa understood quite clearly exactly what they were doing. And those who made the Air New Zealand in-flight safety video, proclaiming that 'Tane made the world, including the air that we breathe,' also knew exactly what they were doing. Of course, they are free to believe and to practice a faith of their choosing, but to use state resources to promote this publicly, or at a public venue (such as a national museum) is not acceptable. We have a Christian Head of State, an obligation to maintain that, and a long and deep tradition of Christianity within Maoridom, with a clear rejection of tohunga-istic practices, of which Ratana was only one prominent proponent,
Well, William, I know for a fact that the only Santa filling my children's Christmas stockings was me, and I didn't come down the chimney!
I agree that *some* of those promoting a role for 'tikanga' in the courts, or in natural resource management have no inkling at all of the direction that they could be taking us or what could be the consequences of it, but there are others who do know because their intentions have been expressed (He Puapua, for example). Not the directions or consequences you suggest as possibilities but nevertheless not those of a free and democratic society.
Thanks, A great piece of nicely crafted work.
I note in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, section 203A, as amended in May 2024, does not at 203 A (2) (b) permit parties to question other parties witnesses, or at 203A (2) (c) enable cross examination by other parties. If the Licensing Committee does not question a point given by a witness on any aspect, presumably it is accepted?
Given the promulgation in May this year, the previous government is not accountable.
We then see at 203A (2) (d) that tikanga is to be incorporated into hearings and at (e) Submissions
may be made in Maori.
In 204 The Authority does have ability to cross examine. Does this not leave the local Licensing Committee hearings fettered somewhat by not having the benefit of witnesses being questioned and cross examined. Given that tikanga is facilitated, the limitation on questioning and cross examination at the initial hearing on a matter is a burden on applicants who may be facing objections.
All I can say is that this is another piece of stupid legislation which exists because irrationality has been tolerated. It has to stop and be reversed.
I wonder what is the difference between soil and dirt. What’s the difference between H2O and a river? It seems to me that there is a recognition that rivers and soils are living ecosystems. Taking an engineering perspective on rivers by damming them, treating them as sewers, altering the courses of their natural flow etc is coming back to bite us. The degradation of rivers and soils around the world comes from the attitude taken towards them. We’re already seeing the failures of the so called objective view of our living environment to grapple with human induced climate change. Perhaps Maoridom’s perspectives are more humble, less exploitative dare I say more loving. The great thing about science is that it proceeds by falsification. Maybe it’s time to admit that this latest god is not omnipotent and omniscient.
G Middleton
The argument you’re trying to make is about the separation of church and state. Unfortunately your arguments are weak and ineffective - you’re preaching to the choir and not winning anyone over.
Comparing religion to Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is a straw man argument. It is a logical fallacy and plainly intended to insult Maori and religious people. You think simplistic false analogies will make anyone change their mind? Clearly you think spiritually inclined people and the Maori culture are stupid.
If you’re just looking for clicks and a pat on the back then keep doing what you’re doing. But if you actually want to make a difference and convince Maori and others about the merits of the separation of church and state then you need a better strategy.
Do you know what a steel man argument is? It requires a deep understanding of the opposing view. Unfortunately you’re no where near that.
Imagine if you argued that Christmas is meaningless/stupid/irrational and needs to be removed from the law because Santa is not real and Jesus was a primitive deluded supernaturalist who didn’t know where the Sun went at night. Is that a winning argument? You think that would work? I imagine NZ would tell you to get stuffed and leave our traditions (tikanga) alone. NZ understands your argument, many probably agree, but the cultural component wins.
So when you say to Maori that taniwha are BS then you will find the facts are unimportant and the cultural component wins. Maori aren’t going to change for you.
Tikanga in law is not about facts. It is about culture. Harping on about facts won’t get you anywhere. You should make an argument that Maori culture is better off when church and state are separate.
That’s a hard argument to make and you will need to approach it with deep understanding and respect. Ask for guidance from Chris Finlayson or Winston Peters or Shane Jones or anyone who understands both cultures and the current tension between them. Culture, like politics, is a deep topic and it needs more than a “because science” approach.
"Tikanga in law is not about facts. It is about culture. Harping on about facts won’t get you anywhere." Thank you, Peter. I guess it's a difference between reality and the fantasy aspects of culture. The more this country goes down the fantasy road, the more backward it will become. You may be right that you cannot persuade the irrational by rational argument, but at least you can try. It is not an option to try to defeat the irrational by subscribing to irrationality or pretending to do so (like believing or pretending to believe in taniwha).
Facts versus fantasy may be one helpful approach Gary. Tower jumping was not a helpful way to learn to fly. Yet I’m intrigued that our materialistic culture (I don’t say just scientific) has these past decades itself descended into the fantastical more and more -Twilght films/shows, the occult etc. So what’s it about the human psyche that seeks both facts and also sheer meaning?! For often meaning may use facts (scientific or historical) yet employs them reaching higher, towards a more transcendent realm. The crux however is always our own human questing versus the possibility of that ‘transcendent’ Questing as well … downward shall we say …?
Keep up the good work Gary.
https://alistermcgrath.org/
Greetings Gary!
It behoves me to begin a conversation about this intricate and complex matter. Not least as there are in our 21st century some extraordinarily intelligent people who happen to be also religious believers of one kind or another. Of course, it is easier to be a follower of certain religious traditions rather than others and also be a competent and sophisticated scientist, in your contemporary sense of the word, without having, shall we say, a schizoid worldview.
May I introduce you to one such individual? His name is Alister McGrath. There is more than one site from which one can access his writings and biography, but here is his own personal site: Alister McGrath – The website of the Oxford writer Alister McGrath (copy and paste!)
As you can readily see, his writings are extensive and pitched at different levels of readership. This is particularly important when trying to broach the subject you engage with. Let me say straight away that I am extremely sympathetic with what you seek, but wish to refine quite a bit how we try and get there.
Given the complexity and rich traditions that we all need to quarry, a better approach is not through the comments of a Substack thread, but two or three very good hearty meals with excellent bottles of wine, et cetera. I happen to live in the Canterbury region and may I be given to understand you are considerably further north! Are you ever likely to be in the SI? I do travel to Auckland from time to time when I am pursuing one particular role.
A place to start with Alister is his abbreviated version of his three volume tome, A Scientific Theology (2001/2/3): The Science of God (Eerdmans, 2004). He’s also a few later texts directly addressing the interface of science and religion, plus natural theology. All in all, as one may discern from notably his videos with interlocutors and ‘opponents’, he’s no slouch and very quick witted.
Enough for now!
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant famously said, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." Despite that, he accepted the world of sense perception as the world which could be known. I expect there are few who hold to faith when the article of faith is contradicted by what is known (knowledge derived from sense perception which includes the use of technology to expand the reach of sense perception as in my example about the ever-increasing knowledge in the field of cosmology).
The area for faith is delimited by what is known. Faith can exist only in respect of that which is outside what is known. There is room for faith in God outside what is known. I happen not to have that faith, but I do not deny to those who have it the right to have it. However, it is a different matter when the article of faith is contradicted by what is known. For example, inanimate things such as a river cannot spawn a living thing such as a human being. Rainfall is not produced by a god, but by natural processes. It is irrational to hold that faith displaces that which is known, for example to hold that natural processes are displaced by faith in a rain god.
Sure thing Gary; Kant used his own version of dualism, which has been expressed in various guises over our western history of thinking, Ancient Hellenism, Medieval, and now post Kantian, paving the way for that dichotomy between private (values) and public (facts). YET any form of knowing is governed by the nature of the object(s) of knowing, which nature is slowly unveiled by a twin process of empirical-theoretical (back to McGrath - or TF Torrance) investigation. Always employing degrees of faith necessarily. Yet again, this very process is hampered also by what we now call “plausibility structures” (Beger) or the “social imaginary” (Taylor). This is where Peter’s line of discussion comes re “culture”. A scientific culture has taken centuries to emerge, while of course many traditional cultures have their own engagements with their environments. And the last few centuries have witnessed clashes between them, from Spanish through to British. Our own contemporary clashes are just another iteration - with few having the historical cultural epistemological tools to better appraise. The result? Power politics - often now via the very latest technological tools of mass persuasion ;-) Which ‘interested’ parties are quick to deploy!
A sort of "God of the Gaps" concept?
Thanks Gary.