Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Say a little prayer



Mr Key is at it again. This time, as faithfully reported by the ever-faithful New Zealand Herald, he is having a dig at the PM over attendance at Waitangi events. Mr Key went to the dawn service, you see, while the PM did not. Mr Key wants us to know that he was invited to participate by a kaumatua: "He just really made the point that the leader of New Zealand wasn't here today and so there was an opportunity for me to say a few words and I just simply offered a prayer and acknowledged the opportunity I had to offer that prayer."

And that prayer would be to whom? Is this not the same Mr Key who does not believe in God, who said “if you define God as some supreme being that when you die you go through the pearly gates, then I don’t believe in it," whatever that is supposed to mean? It is that man. This is the same Mr Key who only goes to church because “the kids go to schools that demand that (I go to church) as part of my parenting responsibilities," and who only sends his kids to such schools so they can "decide what role religion plays in their life," and no doubt so they can benefit from expensive private education. This is the same Mr Key who puzzled the Herald (in the days before it developed its huge crush on him) with his response to the God question when it was posed by Agenda: "I mean I go to church a lot with the kids, but I wouldn't describe it as something that I ... I'm not a heavy believer; my mother was Jewish which technically makes me Jewish. Yeah, I probably see it in a slightly more relaxed way."

Yes, relaxed, in the sense of opportune: Mr Key says that he will routinely take part in the dawn service at Waitangi and return to Te Tii marae, if elected prime minister. He's just doing it for the kids, and the Maori voters. But he's not fooling the fundies.

Here's 'Retha:


Image provided by Abbie Hoffman

16 comments:

The Reluctant Botanist said...

What can you expect from him though, Paul? He's desperate to become Prime Minister because he can, rather than because he is motivated by any particular ideology, or any particular idea, for that matter. He's smacks of a political dilettante, rather than a socially motivated politician. I suspect he just ended up getting bored of Merchant Banking and chose politics as his next hobby. Potentially an identity project?

Sanctuary said...

Could John key be the David Lange of the right, only without the humour and warmth?

Russell Brown said...

Could John key be the David Lange of the right, only without the humour and warmth?

I know what you're saying, but Lange had done things of character long before he was tapped for Parliament. I imagine it took a certain vision to be the legal adviser for the Polynesian Panthers.

Anonymous said...

I loved Murray Webb's caricature/cartoon today:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/0a17215.html

Nothing underlines the Nats' distance from the Maori world more than their obsequious behaviour towards attention-seeking fringe dwellers like Titiwhai and Iti.

Craig Ranapia said...

Oh, for fuck's sake RB, that comment was about as pathetic as the usual suspects at Kiwiblog frothing about Clark's supposed "hypocrisy" in delivering the eulogy at Sir Ed's funeral -- which was held in a real, live Anglican church.

And here's me thinking atheists (or 'agnostic' for public consumption) couldn't cross the threshold without being reduced to piles of ash...

Meanwhile, I'm going to a (non-denominational) civil wedding that's going to be conducted by Methodist celebrant who is friend of the bride and groom. What a stinking fucking hypocrite I am.

micah68 said...

How does John Key an atheist get off with praying at the Te Tii Marae? This is another sign of his political pragmatism (to put it in its best light) and absolute hypocrisy (to be real about it). In one foul swoop he denigrades Marae protocol and the Christian faith. Of course there is a tradition for doing such for politcal expediency but surely this should help those Christian i love with key to see what he really is about! I wrote to my FOCaL (Forum of the Christian Left) egroup in response to some discusion about whether Christian should vote based on a politican's policy and ability to delver or on their stated beliefs...
http://faithfulleft.blogspot.com/

Craig Ranapia said...

In one foul swoop he denigrades Marae protocol and the Christian faith.

The only 'foul' denigration I'm seeing around here is your comment -- more proof that the religious left is every bit as obnoxious as the religious right.

Now, Micah68, as a Catholic who exactly am I "denegrating" by treating other's spirituality, and their observances, with civility and respect?

The Reluctant Botanist said...

Fair point Craig. Are left wing Christians also supposed to not vote for Clark or the Greens because they're decidedly agnostic or atheistic? Leaves an awfully empty ballot paper...

Craig Ranapia said...

Reluctant Botanist:

If you're going to bother constructing a straw man, put a bit of effort into it.

Strange as this may sound, I don't give a whore's cunny who my fellow parishioners and co-religionists vote for. Well, that's not strictly true -- I'd be chuffed if National secured 100% of the party and electorate vote on E-Day but that's not going to happen.

Certainly hope everyone will exercise their basic political responsibility as a citizen, and do so on a more considered basis than a religious sniff test of party leaders.

But whether they do or don't, we have a charming electoral convention called the secret ballot.

What a qualified elector does to a duly-issued ballot paper in the privacy of a voting booth is none of my beeswax. If you don't tell, I'm certainly not going to ask.

The Reluctant Botanist said...

I was actually agreeing with you Craig. If the religious left were to get upset about atheists and agnostics speaking in churches on our own side of the political spectrum (eg. Helen at Sir Ed's Funeral in an Anglican Church) as much as they seem to be getting as upset as those on the right, there wouldn't be many left to vote for, is all I'm saying. Not everyone is out to confront you, Craig.

Craig Ranapia said...

RB:

If I mis-read you comment, of course I offer an absolute and unconditional apology.

I actually agree with Paul that insincere displays of religiosity should make people cringe -- my particular bete noir are award shows where acceptance speeches run like this: "I'd like to thank God, without who 'Suck My Cock, Ho, 'Fore I Put A Cap in Yo' Ass' wouldn't have been the success it is." :)

But a little proportion wouldn't hurt, would it? I also say this a lot: I take both my faith and my politics seriously enough not to drag the bully pulpit into church.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of proportionality, Craig: surely you are educated enough to make your points without habitually resorting to the pornographic imagery and sexually violent language of alienated pubescent youth? I'd like to be able to spend some of my leisure time reading the reasonable blogs without being assaulted by your abusive "humour".

Craig Ranapia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig Ranapia said...

Anonymous:

I was certainly well-educated enough to know that a gentleman does not insult people, or give them etiquette lectures, while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity.

Please, feel free to damn me as a vulgar little troll if you must -- I'm sure there are numerous occasion when it would be a just charge. But be advised I don't place much store in the moral or ethical judgement of people who can't even remember their names.

I will, however, indulge you by not pointing out the two things you have in common with the rear end of the moral high horse you're riding.

Anonymous said...

No, Craig, I don’t think of you as a vulgar little troll. After posts like the ones in this thread, I think of you as an arrogant bully with a hair-trigger temper. Your responses to other points of view are frequently disproportionate and intimidatory. It seems to me you are increasingly using blogs other than your own as your bully pulpit. As a blog reader, I’m saying it’s not okay. Not everyone shares your view that treating other people with respect is only mandatory among co-religionists and that using your own name gives you license to let fly everywhere else.

Go ahead and fling another puerile insult if it makes you feel better. But I think people would be more inclined to listen to your distinctive POV if you toned down your language and got off your own high horse occasionally.

Anonymous said...

meanwhile the Maxim Institute are resurfacing in Election Year. More voting seminars. Also this rubbish:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0802/S00252.htm

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0802/S00264.htm