Written By: - Date published: 10:56 pm, August 2nd, 2008 - 120 comments
Categories: election 2008, john key, national -
Tags:
At last an upfront acknowledgement of the Exclusive Brethren’s support for National during the 2005 election campaign. According to Colin Espiner:
Day One of National’s annual conference is nearly over and so far the biggest clanger has been departing Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson’s thank-you to the Exclusive Brethren during his departing remarks to delegates.
There was some shocked silence and a few laughs but the look on president Judy Kirk’s face was priceless. Suffice to say she was not amused.
Bob Clarkson, who was thanked effusively for his “triumph” in beating Winston Peters in Tauranga last election, has just told the conference he had the help of 150 Brethren to do it!
I don’t think the leadership will be delighted with that admission. Interesting though. The delegates laughed but must have been dumbstruck at both the information and Clarkson’s generous parting gift to Peters’ campaign to reclaim the seat.
I am sure many within National would wish to see a veil drawn over that particular relationship. It isn’t that simple however. Having Steven Joyce, who was a key player in the Hollow Men, as one of their top list candidates is just going to keep Bob Clarkson’s revelations a live issue.
Mr Joyce has made no apologies for what happened in 2005, saying he worked to be a good campaign manager:
“I am just confident that everything that National did in that campaign among the campaign team was in keeping with the electoral act.”
John Key escaped much of the Hollow Men fall out and appears unconcerned at any of Joyce’s association with Brethren activity. According to Key, the party will benefit from Joyce’s political and business experience:
“Steven Joyce has over a number of years played an important role in the rejuvenation of the party…this contribution is set to continue in the years ahead.”
But how many National MPs feel similarly comfortable? And what does the future offer for Mr Joyce under the leadership of Key? Under National party rules it’s the leader who appoints the Cabinet (under Labour it’s a caucus vote).
Is Mr Key planning to have Steven Joyce sitting beside him around the Cabinet table? How will the current crop of MPs feel about the fast tracking of a man who brought considerable controversy to the party? What portfolios would Joyce be in line to get and at whose expense?
We’re used to headlines from Bob Clarkson, but full marks for his Brethren confession, even if it was on his way out the door. But with Steven Joyce moving into a top spot on National’s list, and Key’s ongoing support for Joyce, I’m expecting to see some fallout and rocky terrain ahead.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
MORE from “theexclusivebrethren.com”
http://theexclusivebrethren.com/documents/MarriageandFamily.pdf
“An investigation into Marriage and Family Relations among The Exclusive Brethren in Australia”
By Gary D. Bouma, BA, BD, MA, PhD, Professor of Sociology, UNESCO Chair in Interreligious and Intercultural Relations – Asia Pacific; Monash University.
The answers to the questions raised in the little exchange between Matthew Pilott and myself, will be found therein.
CHEERS.
Phil, I skimmed your rehashed post. What’s your point?
Something to be condemned and shut down and legislated against?
May I politely suggest you read the thread more thoroughly rather than just scanning for phrases that attract your attention. I have specifically stated above that I did NOT think that legislating against this kind of involvment was either desirable or possible. Nor has anyone else suggested this.
If you want to talk about what is really a “link’ between a political party and some supposedly independent organisation , you can’t do better than to look at the “intertwined lovers’ behaviour of certain Unions, and the Labour Party.
It may have escaped your notice, but Unions are not Churches. They are rather different things.
What members of the EB did, was participate in Democracy, based on their convictions,
Or given what we do know about the EB, that they were carrying out the orders of their leadership, based on the probablilty that if they did not there would be severe personal consequences for them.
If members of this particular Church were genuinely free to be involved in politics they would be free to be support a variety of Parties, and free to vote. But they are not are they?
And considering both the tone and nature of your comments, you are yourself providing a lucid example of exactly why I think Churches and Political Parties make poor bed-fellows.
Matthew Pilott:
“people’s objection to the EB is nothing to do with their wealth, or if they choose to openly participate in Democracy.”
Hey, it IS TOO about those things at “the Standard” and in the Labour Party, otherwise, why pass such an over-the-top EFB? It’s a bit late to try and flip-flop on that now.
But add the word “alleged” in front of “wealth”, too, would ya?
AND Matthew:
“As for the family court, the DPB and the legalisation of prostitution, last I checked those state instruments were there for a variety of reasons – to spare families from going through full formal court proceedings, and to give precedence to childrens’ interests for one, to support those unable to work and support their families, and to allow sex workers to work in a safer legal environment and not criminalise people in an already vulnerable situation.”
FINE. You’ve got your justifications for things that rip families apart on a grand scale, the EB have their justifications for things that obviously keep families TOGETHER. And THAT, my friends, is what you REALLY hate most about them.
I’d like to see D4J comment on your writeup of the Family Court. As for prostitutes “in an already vulnerable situation”, hey, how is it working out for them now that you’ve decriminalised them? How are their drug habits and depression and suicide attempts, how is their sense of self-worth coming along?
Say, “Foooooooo, eh”. Do you know “philu”? He pops in on Kiwiblog all the time and says “fwhooar”. It’s the same thing.
Phil, you can put up some nice happy quotes, I can put up some rather unhappy ones. What do you say?
I’d rather not turn this into a propaganda clipping service as you have chosen to, so I’ll give two links:
BBC Overview:
A comment within from a happy camper:
—–
The harshness of separation has been heavily criticised in the press and by former members of the Exclusive Brethren.
They say that the Exclusive Brethren’s rigid laws destroy marriages, split families and damage the lives of members who try to leave.
Since a members’ whole existence has been focused on the church they have to rebuild their lives completely if they leave or are expelled. It can be a very lonely experience.
“It was a known thing ever since you were a child that if you ever left you’d go to hell – you’d burn in hell for ever; and that you’d never be able to speak to any of your family or anyone that you’d ever known through childhood in the Brethren ever again. That you’d just be ignored… like you didn’t exist”
Ex-Brethren woman
Representatives of the Brethren have rejected the claim about hell: “salvation is not in any way limited to membership of an organisation or fellowship”.
Families often put great pressure on leavers to return to the Brethren, which can add to the trauma of separation. Other pressure can include job loss and having to leave the family home.
—–
Charming innit?
And this.
—–
Consider, for example, the ‘Levitical meetings’ started by Taylor Jr. These meetings were based on instructions in Leviticus to ‘shut up’ (isolate or expel) a person or house where leprosy was suspected. At intervals, priests visited to establish whether or not the leprosy had spread.
This Scripture was misapplied by Taylor to mean that a member suspected of sin or of breaking Taylor’s directives was banned from meetings and even from contact with all other members, even close relatives. The ‘priests’ were assembly leaders who visited these individuals and decided their fate. And there are many horror stories.
One husband was ‘shut up’, that is, expelled and banned fifteen years ago from living with his wife and children. Neither his brother nor his wife knew the reason for the decision but they were submissive to the leaders. Such practices place draconian power in the hands of the leadership.
—–
Tane
August 5, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“Phil, I skimmed your rehashed post. What’s your point?”
Good for you, Tane. Consider: what if the Exclusive Brethren site’s claims about themselves are true? And you’re wrong?
Consider: Why would the EB’s own leader say all that stuff about equality and lack of class distinctions if the EB really WERE in on the grand “exploit the proletariat” plot?
“FINE. You’ve got your justifications for things that rip families apart on a grand scale, the EB have their justifications for things that obviously keep families TOGETHER. And THAT, my friends, is what you REALLY hate most about them.”
So much for keeping families together, Phil. Tyranny in place of love. That (as you shout) is what I HATE about them; I pity you. I know that it’s not all as nice as you paint, and not all as bad as I have given example of, but I think there have to be some serious questions asked.
Unlike you, I can attempt to see both sides of the story. I can see the good and the bad within the family court and the EB, an sincerely believe good outweighs bad a thousand times over for the former. Unfortunately I can’t say the same about the latter…
“Hey, it IS TOO about those things at “the Standard’ and in the Labour Party, otherwise, why pass such an over-the-top EFB? It’s a bit late to try and flip-flop on that now.”
Yes, open democracy. That’s what the EFA does and is doing. Thank god for that eh?
Nice typically conservative and ill-informed comments about prostitution. You’ll be telling me absistence really works for horny young kids next. I’m not going to educate your poor backwards mind here, but only suggest that if you could open it a fraction you would see the good that the law change has made.
If you missed it, I can’t help. I can only thank whoever required that people with the foresight to help people’s lives were in charge to put that law into place, instead of backwards reactionaries like yourself who would make things worse for their own conceited morals.
OK, OK, Matthew Pilott, we could dig up some pretty unsavoury stuff about things that Unions have done in the past, too. Does that mean that politicians and the media and the public would have good reason to condemn any involvement on their part, in participatory democracy? Or that they cannot possibly represent any broader good in spite of those unsavoury incidents?
And DO READ that study by Professor Bouma of Monash Uni. As I said above, the EB have their justifications for things that obviously keep families TOGETHER.
I will have a look, and try to keep an open mind when I do.
Matthew Pilott; You seem to be ignoring the salient point. I asked THIS question an hour ago:
What is the proportion of ripped-apart families in the EB, compared to in YOUR model society?
DUH.
And you say:
“I can attempt to see both sides of the story. I can see the good and the bad within the family court and the EB, an sincerely believe good outweighs bad a thousand times over for the former. Unfortunately I can’t say the same about the latter”
FINE. I’ll leave others who can read and follow our respective links, to judge WHOSE model society rips apart a thousand times as many families……..
“Yes, open democracy. That’s what the EFA does and is doing. Thank god for that eh?”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA……….keep it up.
“Nice typically conservative and ill-informed comments about prostitution. You’ll be telling me absistence (SIC) really works for horny young kids next.”
Hey, did you not have any ancestors for whom abstinence DID work? I’m not going to educate your poor backwards mind here, but only suggest that if you could open it a fraction you would see the good that the old traditions did for society and its stability in their time…….
“….the good that the law change has made…….people with the foresight to help people’s lives were in charge to put that law into place…….”
….yeah, to help people’s lives onto a spiral of self-destruction.
Nice open liberal mind you have, anything that feels good to you can lodge itself there…..
Time to go immerse myself in a vat of alcohol again…..
Sorry, missed your nice comment above about reading that report with an open mind. I take back my above insult.
PhilBest, seeing you hate for people to miss the point, how about you address the point that has been raised a number of times.
The problem I had with how the Brethren behaved last time round is as follows. Please extend to me the same courtesy that you extend to the E. Brethren and accept this at face value.
First a disclaimer.
I have no problem with people belonging to whatever religion they please. I have no problem with people structuring their family life however they please, as long as it is within the Law. This obviously includes setups like the Brethren, that I think are immoral with regard to the ‘shutting in’ and the ‘shunning’ and so forth. Not my problem, like I say they can do what they want. (The fact that they do not extend this courtesy to others is again my problem, not theirs. I’m ok with that, they can argue their unpopular case, I’m confident they’ll lose.)
Part of doing what they want, is the whole “exclusive” thing. They separate themselves from society for a number of theological reasons. Fine. Their prerogative. They take this to the extent of prohibiting belonging to or voting for any political party. Again, fine by me. How is it though that they can, within that theological framework, spend so much time and money trying to influence the election? That interests me. I am explicitly not saying they shouldn’t be allowed or whatever, I am merely saying that I would like to have that information to help me judge the worth of their message.
Which brings me to the problem I had with their campaign.
They deliberately took steps to hide the fact that the campaign was a Brethren initiative.
They pretended to be a bunch of ordinary individuals that coincidentally decided, along with other Brethren sub chapters around the world, to all of a sudden start funding and/or campaigning for, political parties. Even though such a thing would, on the face of it, be a strange thing for them to do given their theology. This to me says that something was going on inside the group. Fair enough, they can do what they like. Won’t be the first time religion contradicted itself.
What’s not fair enough though is that they didn’t want the voters to know that it was the Brethren that was speaking. Name another organisation that would get away with this.
That is the difference between what they did, and what Unions do. Every union ad or flier states in great big letters who it is that is speaking. They don’t hide the fact that it is a Union speaking. That is what I found to be dishonest.
Are you familiar with the concept of Divine Deception as it relates to the EB? You do know that Lying For The Lord is widely practiced according to many ex members of this happy little group.
Or those exmembers not to be believed because they are all just bitter individuals that want their kids back.
Sorry, I’ve been too busy to revisit this thread until now.
Pascal’s Bookie:
have you read the study by Professor Bouma of Monash Uni that I linked to above? It seems to me that maybe Matthew Pilott and Tane have got the point. You guys talk about the GOOD that you perceive to be done by the DPB, Prostitution Law Reform, and the way the Family Court operates, and you minimise the downsides. Yet you go off your rockers at every evil incident that can be attributed to the Exclusive Brethren, when as a distinguished Professor has pointed out, they have the most stable family structures to be found anywhere. That is why socialists who are prepared to justify the “family breakdown” side-effects of THEIR social model in the light of the “good” that is otherwise served by that social model, are hypocritical in the extreme to condemn “family breakdown” when it occurs in the EB, all the while that the rate of family brakdown in the EB is the LOWEST to be found in any identifiable social group.
I have been thinking about this further, and am kicking myself that I had not thought up to now, of the following angle, which bears pretty directly on the point you are trying to make. Has the Labour Party not always been able to take for granted, support and voluntary help at the time of every election, from the congregations of numerous “pinko” ministers and churches? In far greater numbers than the EB? Has anybody ever at any time insisted on declarations of religious affiliation from these people? Would any “Conservative” politician DREAM of insisting on this?
Sorry, as I say, I am kicking myself for not thinking of this earlier, but as far as I am concerned now, it is game, set, and match, as far as the sheer hypocrisy of your side of the political fence is concerned.
PB: Don’t be stupid.
You’re trying to compare two completely different levels of activity and trying to say that they are the same.
You are talking about people openly assisting virtually every party in the political spectrum. They come from the across the religious spectrum, and in only a few cases do it by congregation (eg destiny church). But the point is that they campaign overtly.
Then you are saying that is the equivalent to a small covert group. They tried to outspend the Greens election budget when attacking them. To avoid the restrictions by the Electoral Act 1993, they put bogus contact details on their brochures.
A covert attack on a political party with the clear intent of bypassing the law, is not the same as openly helping political parties.
Thank god the legislation has changed so this type of immoral behavior is now limited and must be overt.
PhilBest:
You’re working from the false assumption that keeping families together against their natural tendency to split is the best option.
As I said earlier – I couldn’t care less about the EB religion but I do care about their attempt to mold the election while remaining hidden and in collusion with National which I find despicable.