ImperatorFish: Uncle Ernie: Hidden In Plain Sight

Written By: - Date published: 3:07 pm, December 16th, 2011 - 53 comments
Categories: abortion, feminism, gay rights, newspapers - Tags: ,

Scott at Imperator Fish has kindly given us permission to syndicate posts from his blog – the original of this post is here

——————————————————

Uncle Ernie: Hidden In Plain Sight

A mate of mine wrote this week:

The Greens are dangerous. They are more than a polite group of tree-huggers, slug-savers and water samplers but you rarely, if ever, hear of the more sinister planks of their policy, which are frightening to say the least to those of us who care about what really matters.

I almost had a turn when I read that. By God, the hippies have a secret agenda! I always wondered what their ultimate goal was, but I never suspected their plan was to exterminate the young and elderly, and force everyone into same-sex marriages against their will.

If I am to be forced into wedlock with another man at my advanced age (oh the horror!), then my only hope is that he is at least someone young and with some vigour about him. A smart young man in a police or military uniform would at least make the ordeal less harrowing.

Jesus wouldn’t approve of this, I’m sure. If he were here today Jesus would damn all the Greens to Hell for their deviant and murderous ways, because damning others is what Jesus does best. Don’t be fooled into thinking that Jesus was always nice and would never hit back hard and ruthlessly against wrongdoers. That’s just what the liberals want you to think. So when Jesus said all that stuff in the Bible about loving one another he wasn’t being serious. People shouldn’t take literally everything that the Good Book says. For example, the Book of Exodus says that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death, but nobody seriously thinks it’s a good idea to kill people who work on a Sunday. A thorough beating with clubs and sticks will usually be perfectly adequate.

My mate reckons that it’s a good thing we have Winston Peters back in Parliament. My mate says that if Peters and his offsiders do nothing else in the next three years than stand against any move by the Greens and/or Labour to advance their murderously liberal humanism, they will have the gratitude and the support of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who see the sanctity of life as the bedrock on which civilised society is built. I paraphrase, of course.

I couldn’t agree with him more. There’s nothing more insidious than a set of political beliefs that preaches respect for the environment and others, and tolerance of diversity and the views of minorities.

And is there anything more damaging to a society than allowing two people in a committed relationship and who love each other but just happen to be of the same gender to share the bonds of marriage?

Let’s be having no more of this humanistic humbug!

Another mate of mine says the evil plans of the Greens are social engineering of the worst kind, and by God he’s right! Can there be anything more sinister than a terrifying social engineering campaign, except when it involves an elderly white man telling people they must comply with his narrow worldview formed by decades of comfort, privilege and bigotry?

53 comments on “ImperatorFish: Uncle Ernie: Hidden In Plain Sight ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. chris73 1
    16 December 2011 at 4:34 pm

    I’m in favour of Gay marriage and Gay adoption. Anything that promotes faithfullness and family is all good in my book.

    • millsy 1.1
      17 December 2011 at 12:08 am

      Im surprised at that statement, given that you thought about giving your vote to a party that would have homosexuality recriminalised by lunchtime (The Conservatives)

  2. Tigger 2
    16 December 2011 at 5:17 pm

    Gays and abortion. The religious right have little else to define it these days.

    Ppot Garth, clearly Peter Dunne is the only thing standing betweenhums and a death panel. 

  3. Vicky32 3
    16 December 2011 at 5:56 pm

    Jesus wouldn’t approve of this, I’m sure. If he were here today Jesus would damn all the Greens to Hell for their deviant and murderous ways, because damning others is what Jesus does best. Don’t be fooled into thinking that Jesus was always nice and would never hit back hard and ruthlessly against wrongdoers. That’s just what the liberals want you to think. So when Jesus said all that stuff in the Bible about loving one another he wasn’t being serious. People shouldn’t take literally everything that the Good Book says. For example, the Book of Exodus says that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death, but nobody seriously thinks it’s a good idea to kill people who work on a Sunday. A thorough beating with clubs and sticks will usually be perfectly adequate.

    Where do I begin? I am sure the author of this thinks he such a clever, clever man! I’ve read this kind of thing, almost word for word on the Dawkins site, American Atheist and oh, many others…
    Have you ever heard of the New Testament? Exodus is now irrelevant. 
    My last comment here is that love and sex are not the same thing (although sometimes they do coincide.)  Love all you want, but do try to be a bit disciplined about how often, with how many and with whom you have sex.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      16 December 2011 at 6:44 pm

      …but do try to be a bit disciplined about how often, with how many and with whom you have sex.

      I’d go for the disciplined but (always use protection) but why are you concerned with the who and how many?

      • Vicky32 3.1.1
        16 December 2011 at 6:49 pm

         but why are you concerned with the who and how many?

        What I was referring to is promiscuous behaviour – the actions of those who have a different ‘partner’ every night of the week, or who act likes the babies’ song – “there were three in the bed/and the little one said/ roll over/roll over”.. etc.
        You  don’t believe in souls, so I’ll leave them out, but gaily bumping uglies with whoever takes your fancy this minute, isn’t good for the emotions long term.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1
          16 December 2011 at 7:17 pm

          But that’s up to the person and not any body else. Also, some people find fulfilment by having multiple partners and being promiscuous and not from monogamy. I’m sure that if they find that it doesn’t suit them they’ll change.

          • Vicky32 3.1.1.1.1
            16 December 2011 at 7:25 pm

            Also, some people find fulfilment by having multiple partners and being promiscuous and not from monogamy

            I am sure they think they do! 
            No doubt they’ll change when they’re 60 and finding it a lot harder to get a buff 20 year old in their bed… or maybe one day, to their horror, they’ll find their heart is involved, and suffer the consequences, which if they’re lucky will just be derisive laughter…
            OK, they can do whatever the heck they want! I am sure the modern-day Casanovas, Marquis de Sades and Aleister Crowleys would not welcome my concern for their well-being.
            I notice you ignored the rest of what I said! Please, keep on ignoring it. The internet atheist memes are all so tiresome, so predictable, so over-used that I can’t be bothered debating them.
            What are you even doing debating with someone like me? After all, you have “no respect” for me, and I have “a few good ideas” once in a while, but I assume generally not. So, have a nice life! 😛

            • Tangled up in blue 3.1.1.1.1.1
              18 December 2011 at 7:27 am

              Imo it sounds like you’re trying to rationalise your ‘because Jesus said so’.

        • Roy 3.1.1.2
          17 December 2011 at 7:11 pm

          “gaily bumping uglies with whoever takes your fancy this minute, isn’t good for the emotions long term”
          Maybe not your emotions, but you should not make assumptions about what is good for, or detrimental to, the emotions of others, because you simply do not know.
          I find your characterisation of sexual intercourse as ‘bumping uglies’ to be very revealing, probably far more so than you intended, and I pity you for your very negative view of sexual intercourse and of the human body. You probably have no idea how maimed your view of such things is.

    • fmacskasy 3.2
      19 December 2011 at 11:11 am

      “Have you ever heard of the New Testament? Exodus is now irrelevant. ”

      I’ve heard similar statements by other folk that the OT is no longer relevant.

      In which case one has to ask why the OT is still included in the Bible?

      And why is Creationism promoted by some religious fundamentalists to be taught in schools? (Since Creationism is based on Genesis, which is part of the OT.)

      • Vicky32 3.2.1
        19 December 2011 at 2:00 pm

        In which case one has to ask why the OT is still included in the Bible?
         

        IMO, because it’s prologue – a kind of “the story so far”… and it shows a very unsophisticated understanding of God. Some Christians regard the OT as being still relevant, but it’s really not, as the NT has superseded it. Take the issue of working on the Sabbath that the OP mentions. Jesus’ own words in the NT proclaim that the ‘rules’ that used to obtain, don’t now.

        And why is Creationism promoted by some religious fundamentalists to be taught in schools? (Since Creationism is based on Genesis, which is part of the OT.)

        Really, I have to say “beats me”! I am not a Creationist, most Christians aren’t – those who are, seem to be American or American-influenced, and amount to a miniscule percentage of Christians world-wide. I have observed that many internet atheists (Dawkins for instance) have a huge problem with figurative language, possibly because many are on the autism spectrum? – though not Dawkins himself in this respect) but I theorise that Creationists have the same problem with recognising/understanding that something can be poetically true while not being literally true!

  4. millsy 4
    16 December 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Its OK for a man to beat his child with a jug cord, but heaven forbid if he has sex with another man.

    • Vicky32 4.1
      16 December 2011 at 7:51 pm

      Its OK for a man to beat his child with a jug cord

      I am certain that you’ll find Garth George has never said that! He’s often written in defence of children, and of women raising children on benefits. Maybe that’s one reason why teh angry men hate him so much? He defends women and worse, women who are mothers!
      I am getting angry now. You guys don’t balk at lies, do you?

      • millsy 4.1.1
        16 December 2011 at 8:02 pm

        The Garth George you know and the Garth George I know must be 2 totally different people 🙂

        His opposition to Sue Bradford’s bill to remove the reasonable force defence is well known.

        • Vicky32 4.1.1.1
          16 December 2011 at 8:04 pm

          His opposition to Sue Bradford’s bill to remove the reasonable force defence is well known

          If it’s so well-known, then why don’t I know of it? LInk please, would be good.

          • Galeandra 4.1.1.1.1
            16 December 2011 at 9:00 pm

            You’re obviously time-rich enough to trawl the internet looking for things to offend your religious sensibilities but here’s one quote for you from His column in the Herald 27 August 09:

            ‘If Prime Minister John Key is to maintain his and his party’s credibility in the eyes of the public, he has no choice but to return Section 59 of the Crimes Act to Parliament and have it amended again.

            Only by doing that can he and his National-led Government bring this red-herring anti-smacking controversy to an end. …’

            I’m sure there are many more.

            • Vicky32 4.1.1.1.1.1
              16 December 2011 at 11:32 pm

              You’re obviously time-rich enough to trawl the internet looking for things to offend your religious sensibilities but here’s one quote for you from His column in the Herald 27 August 09:

              Time-rich is exactly what I am not at the moment, but that piece of predictable bitchery aside, I have to say that if that quote is the best you can do, I am not very impressed as it doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it does.

              ‘If Prime Minister John Key is to maintain his and his party’s credibility in the eyes of the public, he has no choice but to return Section 59 of the Crimes Act to Parliament and have it amended again.
              Only by doing that can he and his National-led Government bring this red-herring anti-smacking controversy to an end. …’
              I’m sure there are many more.

              I am about to follow and read Huginn’s link.

          • Huginn 4.1.1.1.2
            16 December 2011 at 9:11 pm

            Here’s a link To G G’s opposition to Sue Badford’s anti-smacking bill:

            Garth George: Be afraid parents, your children will dob you in

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/garth-george/news/article.cfm?a_id=10&objectid=10428796

  5. Vicky32 5
    16 December 2011 at 11:35 pm

    No, I am not following Huginn’s link because it led nowhere (or rather it led to the Herald website as a whole, and not to any article by G.G.

  6. ropata 6
    16 December 2011 at 11:52 pm

    Vicky,
    Hint: It’s SATIRE… in other words not to be taken seriously.
    Obviously the comments about Jesus were tongue in cheek — it was clear to me that the author knew Jesus was all about loving thy neighbour, helping the downtrodden, and exposing TPTB

    Personally I thought it was very good.

    • Vicky32 6.1
      17 December 2011 at 12:42 am

      Hint: It’s SATIRE… in other words not to be taken seriously.

      Sigh.. I know it’s (meant to be) satire, I am not an idiot. If you’ll re-read what I said, my point was that the impact of it is much blunted by the rather juvenile obviousness and the slavish fidelity to its sources on American Atheist…
      I rather gather his main aim was to portray Garth George as some sort of blithering right wing fundamentalist evangelical, which couldn’t be further from the truth. He’s a Catholic, and if the author knew ought about religion especially as it is in New Zealand, he’d know that Catholics tend not to be right wing! 
      The real issue however seems to be sex. Most men and some women completely lose any sense of proportion when confronted with the idea that scratching a genital itch is not the most important thing in life…

      • Skeptic to the max 6.1.1
        17 December 2011 at 2:53 am

        Catholics- Ruth Richardson,( remember her?) Bill English, Jim Bolger, David Bennett……

        Historical Catholic Church support of Nazism, Facism right wing of Italy and Spain. Try UK prominent Catholics and Belgium’s politics.

        Bill English today with his view essentially on grassroots charity and his Poverty committee has a stance fitting with right wing politics( he being a Catholic) in that ‘charity’ is not the domain of Government hence the predominance of solely fiscal  results as determining criteria for Government money to be injected. Hence other gains in measuring well-being in individuals, families, communities become defunct. eg, that a family shifts from violence, or neglect of children or is no longer hungry say through help from foodbanks and other charity agencies is a social cost gain; but in English’s view not a measurable monetary gain.
        “The roll-out of whanau ora nationally and the social sector trials[refering to those he stated National had already instigated, 6 towns, trials that are to run for two years before results are known before addressing the issues ] were showing that some social delivery agencies were not able to make a lasting difference to people’s lives.
        They could raise money, get an office, find youth workers or home visitors and get to the front door.
        “They are not driven by real results, they are driven by caring and supporting and helping.”
        Asked what measure the committee would adopt for poverty, Mr English said measuring poverty was not a big issue.”  [ speak for…I haven’t got a clue how to get us out of the shit but the two year trial of a few agencies will tell me the answers; then we will see about putting help into the rest of the country]

        Fiscal fiddling, short term gains, quick fix to the detriment of long term gains, punitive social policy.. are seen as the solution to alleviate the adverse effects such as poverty as opposed to hands in and on actual pro-active social and employment activities.

        Richardson, English- A Catholic view…I think not.
         

        • ropata 6.1.1.1
          17 December 2011 at 12:17 pm

          This is exactly why the I. Fish article is not a critique of religion/christianity/catholicism in particular. It’s too broad a church. It’s a critique of GG and his curmudgeonly idiocy. Although GG does occasionally (as Vicky has kindly pointed out) show glimmers of sanity, the overwhelming evidence is that he’s a grumpy old fool with a grudge against non Christians and non conformists. He has a national platform to express this, therefore loud and public criticism is warranted.

        • Vicky32 6.1.1.2
          18 December 2011 at 5:33 pm

          Catholics- Ruth Richardson,( remember her?) Bill English, Jim Bolger, David Bennett……

          Ruth Richardson is a Catholic? Proof please… and who on earth is David Bennett?

          Historical Catholic Church support of Nazism, Facism right wing of Italy and Spain…

          this “historical support” is a fantasy, and has been proven not to be true. I can furnish you with ample proof if you like, but not here. It’s very possible that you know this, but hope that I won’t.

           

      • Roy 6.1.2
        17 December 2011 at 7:14 pm

        I feel very sorry for you that you apparently consider sexual desire to be merely ‘a genital itch’ and sexual intercourse to be nothing more than ‘scratching a genital itch’.
        If your genitals itch, please see your doctor. Itchy genitals are not normal, and are usually eminently treatable. Sex is much more pleasurable with healthy genitals.

  7. Vicky32 7
    17 December 2011 at 1:01 am

    Meanwhile, I have found this article by Garth George…
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/garth-george/news/article.cfm?a_id=10&objectid=10768231
    about the election. Take note of this : “poverty afflicts more than 200,000 children; and foodbanks in Auckland and Northland alone provided more than 4000 food parcels in the three months to September this year.”
    and this – “Labour’s capital gains tax is a no-brainer and should have been introduced decades ago; so is its plan to make the first $5000 or earnings tax-free.”
    Yeah, sure he’s a raving loony rightist! 😀

    • bbfloyd 7.1
      17 December 2011 at 12:09 pm

      i’m sure you’ve enjoyed turning this post into being all about you, but to those who would have preferred reading relevant comment around a post you seem to have deliberately misrepresented, this has been a boring waste of time……. thanks for nothing vikk…..

      • Vicky32 7.1.1
        18 December 2011 at 5:43 pm

        i’m sure you’ve enjoyed turning this post into being all about you, but to those who would have preferred reading relevant comment around a post you seem to have deliberately misrepresented, this has been a boring waste of time……. thanks for nothing vikk…..

        Do grow up! I had no desire of turning this post into being all about me, but the angry-men wanted it that way, so that’s what they’ve done. It’s all about abusing and insulting Christians and Garth George, by making me somehow into a representative of Christians/Catholics etc. I am reminded of what Olwyn said on another thread about calling leftists ‘nasty’. :- “The right’s “nasty party meme” follows the form of the interaction between the bully and the bullied, at a school yard level. A group of teenage girls goad another girl; “How come you’re so fat?” “Is that your mother’s dress you’re wearing?” or similar, until she lashes out and cries “Just F off!” to which they say, “See, now she’s being nasty.”
        http://thestandard.org.nz/easy-come-easy-go/#comment-419077
        So, I am nasty and evil – and yes, I am a good deal nastier than most other Christians. But that comes of having spent so long as a mother on DPB – I learned that I have to stand up for myself, and for others. So many angry-men don’t get that Christian (or woman) does not equal doormat. The real irony is that I am not a Catholic! But as the amgry-men hate them so much, it makes me more inclined to consider becoming one.
        In the meantime BBFloyd, thanks for the insults.. and to the men banging on about my choice of figurative language, my genital health is fine thanks! I’ve noticed that many, if not most internet angry-men have huge problems with figurative language. 😀

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2
      17 December 2011 at 12:54 pm

      Another poor Christian with a massive chip on her shoulder, unable to recognise how deeply offensive her fact-free prejudice is.

      • ropata 7.2.1
        17 December 2011 at 4:32 pm

        is that your view of all Christians? just wondering

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1
          18 December 2011 at 3:14 pm

          No, just the ones with massive chips on their shoulders. However, I think the best way to judge any cult is to watch how they behave when they occupy positions of power.

      • Vicky32 7.2.2
        18 December 2011 at 5:49 pm

        Another poor Christian with a massive chip on her shoulder, unable to recognise how deeply offensive her fact-free prejudice is.

        What prejudice would that be then, Mister Anonymous? Your comment is both personal and content-free…
        I paraphrase :- “Another poor angry-man with a massive chip on his shoulder, unable to recognise that women sometimes like to fight back, and not just take mens’ abuse.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.2.1
          18 December 2011 at 6:29 pm

          “Fact-free” – your ignorance of Garth George’s position. Since it is fact free, your opinion is clearly prejudged.
          I support anyone’s right to fight back, irrespective of gender, but “fighting back” by repealing s.59 is like asking Mr. Joseph Ratzinger to think of the children.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.2.2
          19 December 2011 at 10:42 am

          PS: Stop trying to hide behind misandry: my contempt for your opinion is based on your statements, not your gender.

          • Vicky32 7.2.2.2.1
            19 December 2011 at 2:05 pm

            : Stop trying to hide behind misandry: my contempt for your opinion is based on your statements, not your gender.

            Really? I don’t know about that so much… I recognise one vaguely female name in all the abuse above. That says a lot, IMO…

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.2.2.1.1
              19 December 2011 at 5:46 pm

              “The abuse”. Yes, because strongly criticising your statements and beliefs is abusive, isn’t it? In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the last time you lot had any power criticising your statements and beliefs was a criminal offence.

              [lprent: What in the hell are you talking about? If I can’t figure it out, then I suspect noone else can either. ]

              • Vicky32 …
                19 December 2011 at 5:59 pm

                the last time you lot had any power criticising your statements and beliefs was a criminal offence.

                My lot? What do you mean by that? Women? Blue-eyed people? The English? Teachers? Left-handed people? Oh – you mean Christians. When have Christians ever been “in power”?  If you had a shred of independence in your thought, you’d know that politicians and Kings lay claim to being Christian (especially in the USA) because it’s what’s expected.
                Thanks for the ‘sack of shit’ appellation BTW. (Though you seem to have deleted it, it was in the email notification.) I could you a rotten little numb-nut, but I won’t.)

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 December 2011 at 7:35 pm

                  Yes, I deleted that comment as soon as I made it: it was uncalled for, so I withdrew it. Sorry.

                  Oh, and I was talking about blasphemy laws.

              • Daveosaurus …
                19 December 2011 at 9:06 pm

                The “criminal offence” I’d guess to be blasphemous libel. Not sure which “lot” is being referred as this country’s de jure state religion is still Anglicanism.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 December 2011 at 9:15 pm

                  Any religion will do at any time in Earth’s history at any point on the globe. Yes, blasphemous libel, exactly my point. That it has not been successfully prosecuted in NZ is a testament to humanism, and a source of a joy to anyone who believes that freedom from religion is a basic human right.

          • Frida 7.2.2.2.2
            20 December 2011 at 8:06 am

            ‘to terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation – is that good for the world?’ – Christopher Hitchens

            I’m a woman and never get angry but sometimes do when I have to read or hear Garth George and his offensive views.

            I was once involved with a case where a father beat his stepson with a piece of 2 by 4 studded with nails to ‘discipline’ him and was acquitted by the jury using the s 59 Crimes Act defence. It sickened me. The best thing Sue Bradford did for the children of this country was remove the s 59 defence with her fantastic bill. And people like Garth George should stick to their pulpits and leave alone thinking New Zealanders who live their lives based on evidence and reason.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.2.2.2.1
              20 December 2011 at 8:57 am

              ‘to terrify children with the image of hell,’

              Religion is the business of lying to children for money, and Christians wonder why people find it so offensive.

              • Vicky32 …
                20 December 2011 at 5:55 pm

                Religion is the business of lying to children for money, and Christians wonder why people find it so offensive.

                Lying for money? What money would that be then? 😀 (You seem to be mistaking the whole world for a part of the USA, where such things as scaring children with hell, and making money out of said scaring, happen.) 
                In the real world outside your fantasies, Christians are not the rich people.
                “People” find it offensive – so by you, Christians are not people? As my mother used to say when we girls would say of each other “people don’t like what you just did”, “Not people, dear, you“…

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  20 December 2011 at 6:24 pm

                  Of course Christians are people. I didn’t say they were rich either, and my fantasies are just fine thanks for asking.

                  I take your point though – and I do find lying to children offensive – and especially for money. Whether you scare them with hell or not.

                  • Vicky32 …
                    20 December 2011 at 6:41 pm

                    I didn’t say they were rich either, and my fantasies are just fine thanks for asking.

                    Poor boy, you’re making even less sense than usual! You accused Christians of “lying … for money”. I simply asked what money that would be then? As for your fantasies, I really don’t want to know. I suspect they’re probably a bit sado-maso! 😀 I assume that you’re playing your reindeer games again, and that you actually know perfectly well what I meant – or, you’re really, really stupid, which is possible but not likely.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 December 2011 at 6:50 am

                      You asked what money – I’m tempted to respond “ask Mr. Brian Tamaki” – but anyone who draws a church salary will do.
                      The human (not just human either) values that beget acts of charity are present with or without all the supernatural stuff.
                      As for the rest of your comment, perhaps I should point out that one reason I chose my moniker is that personal remarks about an anonymity are futile, and in turn present this as a challenge to keep it substantive.

                      But really this is going nowhere. Today is the solstice, the first day of summer, a traditional time for celebration and renewal. Let’s leave it there.

  8. Lindsey 8
    17 December 2011 at 12:32 pm

    GG got heavied out of The Herald after he allowed a letter to be printed which advocated physical violence against an MP. Then he abused people who rang to complain. He whiles away his time in grumpy old man land by collecting a few bucks for opinion pieces, in this case copied almost directly from another right wing publication’s press release. Sooner or later his parting deal with The Herald will run out. We hope!