- Date published:
9:25 am, April 18th, 2017 - 86 comments
Categories: election 2017, national, Politics, same old national - Tags: simeon brown
I hear there are murmurings in National’s ranks at the number of fundamentalist christians being selected in winnable seats.
One of them is in Pakuranga which is one of the safest of National seats. His name is Simeon Brown. He is aged 24 and is the former deputy chair of the Manurewa Local Board. Given his age it is possible that he could be in Parliament for a long time.
He has some very conservative views and is a self confessed christian. You only have to search Parliament’s website to find out what they are.
He is anti abortion and anti student union at the same time, surprise, surprise.
He is against marriage equality and thought that the Act would make criminals of those who thought that marriage ought to be only between a man and a woman.
I wonder what Maurice Williamson thinks of his selection? The man who mocked celibacy and talk of the gay onslaught and said famously how there was a big gay rainbow over Pakuranga on the morning Marriage Equality was passed is being replaced by a fundamentalist christian who is one of the people that Williamson mocked.
My impression is that National is going through a similar phase that Labour went through in 2008 when morale was declining, attention to detail was not optimal and as membership waned groups with more extreme views held sway. And with the collapse of the Conservative Party the only place for christian conservatives to go to is National.
It may be that as with the Republican Party in America National’s pursuit of support at all cost will mean that it selects some candidates with decidedly fundamentalist christian views. Although all views should naturally be tolerated I worried at the prospect of having a Government where such views dominate.
This opens up a perfect opportunity for a socially liberal but fiscally conservative party to target National party supporters who are uncomfortable with the direction National is heading at the moment.
Labour is hardly fiscally conservative
What’s ‘fiscally conservative’? Doesn’t borrow or doesn’t spend? Or…?
Doesn’t look to increase the size and role of government in the economic sphere.
Ah . So borrowing to the hilt is now seen as good, as it doesnt increase the size of the government in the ‘economic sphere’ ( ie taxes )?
It is called redistribution to the private sector.
No, borrowing to fund spending is still increasing the size of the government.
Not if its not new spending.
e.g. borrowing to compensate for reduced dividends as a consequence of selling assets
Incorrect. If the economy is contracting the size of government would be increasing as a proportion of the total economy. That generally is what concerns fiscal conservatives. Of course you could attempt to redefine the term to satisfy what you want it to mean.
Don’t understand any of this –
-why are the so called fiscal conservatives so generally concerned about this contracting – increasing thingy?
-not sure what you are inviting me to redefine.
Fiscal conservatives generally care about how large the State is in relation to the rest of the economy. They would prefer more private sector activity than government sector. If the economy is contracting even keeping the same absolute amount of spending by the government sector will increase it’s size proportionate to the rest of the economy. That generally is why fiscal conservatives advocate reduced spending in times of a downturn.
Basically Gosman is arguing that we should make recessions worse by cutting government spending even more dramatically during a recession, just like Herbert Hoover did, to the marvelous effect of creating the great depression.
He believes National haven’t gone far enough by putting the country into debt in order to cut services, and wants them to cut more so they can pay off that debt.
I mean, I’ve called National and their biggest cheerleaders economic saboteurs before, but that’s just being brazen about it.
Also, Gosman thinks that keeping the government the same size constitutes an increase in size if the private sector goes into recession. It does not. It constitutes an increase of the public sector’s share of the economy, which is a very different thing, and he doesn’t seem to understand that growing the public sector temporarily in a recession helps the private sector bounce back, at which point we can reasonably cut under-performing non-essential programs.
Basically, for “fiscal conservatism” read “we should pay off debt at any cost, and if we’re done paying off debt, we should cut taxes instead.” It’s a stupid doctrine for intellectual lightweights that deserves no political or academic respect, and fundamentally misunderstands political economics on basically every level. It deserves to be laughed at in exactly the same way that Ayn Rand is.
And that is why fiscal conservative bring about long and protracted depressions. But hey, capitalism is falling over, so it’s all mote anyway.
So it’s okay if you’re a fiscal conservative to cut taxes and blow out the deficit then? As every fiscal conservative has done in the US.
They aren’t a true fiscal conservative then. Fiscal conservatives are interested in balanced budgets not large deficits. That stated they can stomach increased deficits in the short run if they lead to a reduced size of the state as a proportion of the total economy longer term.
Name me a time in modern political history that a fiscal conservative actually balanced a budget after paying off debt. I’ll wait.
Neoliberalism: reduce the size of Government in order to increase the wealth of private sector – i.e. away from common interests to selfish, individual interests.
It doesn’t make sense Gosman to assign some virtue to the middle ground of no change. Since the mid 1980s, we have gone so far down track of dismantling the role of Government – that supporting the middle ground merely ‘conserves’ neoliberal dogma.
The size of the State in the economy as a whole is much greater now than it was during the heyday of the welfare state many leftists bang on about (circa 1950 -60’s)
And can you give your reasoning why you think that is so?
Yeah right! – as if selling the railways, Telecom, Air New Zealand, electricity infrastructure, and all the rest didn’t happen.
What is the precise acceptable “size and role of government in the economic sphere”?
OBTW what the hell is “the economic sphere”?
I don’t think Gosman knows the answer to that – I suspect that he and his so-called ‘fiscal conservatives’ don’t want to consider any acceptable size for Government. After-all the greed of private interests have no bounds.
Of course there is no ‘economic sphere’ – this is a figment of the grand illusion.
NZF only viable option.
Is NZF a socially liberal political party?
If you want a socially conservative and economically centrist party built around a nationalist cult of personality, sure.
Probably no weirder than Bill English in those views. His “conservative” right wing views do not represent the teachings of Jesus Christ. (Love thy neighbour etc)
Jesus was on the side of the poor and exploited. Christian politicians should remember that
Christian politicians should remember that…
Of course they remember it: when you exploit the poor and someone calls you out, have them killed.
Like in Mexico.
Thankyou for reminding us of the truth this Eastertide ropata Pertinent link.
Had been thinking of sending that very article to Bill English myself as he is (supposedly) of the Catholic denomination of Christianity.
Two things come to mind:
A conservative Christian in pakuranga, will probably have a fair amount of support,
was Maurice Williamson all that much of a tolerant, inclusive MP?
I feel he was more expedient than tolerant and just moved with the polls.
Murmurings in National’s ranks? How many tsumamis of murmurings would there need to be before there was any meaningful affect? The way things are a 23 year old conservative fundamentalist Christian convicted of arson could stand for Act in Epsom and she would be elected.
Ummm…. why would a 23 year old conservative fundamentalist Christian convicted of arson stand for ACT when ACT is a socially liberal party whose members generally support euthanasia and liberalising the laws around recreational drugs?
“…ACT is a socially liberal party whose members generally support euthanasia and liberalising the laws around recreational drugs…”
And John Banks did such a sterling job of representing their views…
No he didn’t. Hence why he is no longer representing ACT.
must have meant don brash…
ACT may be a socially liberal party whose members generally support euthanasia and liberalising the laws around recreational drugs but I thought mostly, ahead of all other principles and platforms, they believe that going with the voting flow was the most important thing?
But to the specifics of why a 23 year old conservative fundamentalist Christian convicted of arson would stand for ACT when ACT is a socially liberal party whose members generally support euthanasia and liberalising the laws around recreational drugs. One so described, and a professed vegan who publicly ate raw meat every Tuesday at that, would stand for Act in Epsom because they know they’d get in.
freedom to do whatever you like.. that is the ACT platform. I can’t wait to see a trump or isis supporter turn up in epsom.
“Simeon (Simeon the God-receiver) at the Temple is the “just and devout” man of Jerusalem who, according to Luke 2:25–35, met Mary, Joseph, and Jesus as they entered the Temple to fulfill the requirements of the Law of Moses on the 40th day from Jesus’ birth.- wikipedia
Next we will have a national MP named after the Circumcision of Jesus-
The Holy prepuces.
once it was claimed that after the resurrection, the foreskin became the rings of Saturn.
Hey dukeofurl, that claim about the rings of Saturn is no more ridiculous than the rest of their crap; probably more believable in that we can see the evidence!
Hi garibaldi here’s an effort to provide “evidence”:
I particularly liked the last sentence of the article:
“The more interesting question… ….. ….. is whether Jesus died and lived.” !!
I guess many here won’t find out until they, like me, ‘kick the bucket’.
<i…..whether Jesus died and lived.” !!
Imo, he lived then died like all creatures do.
I liken him to an historical version of Nelson Mandela. A great man/philosopher of his time who ‘lived on’ after his death through his heroic deeds and teachings. In the course of the next few hundred years he was given deity status by those who worshiped those teachings. He was of course just one of those exceptional human beings who only come around once in a while.
Thanks Ann. Jesus was certainly exceptional, hence Easter day.
Btw. always appreciate your comments. You are one of the main commenters that make me want to follow the standard., cheers, and Happy Eastertide.
Thank you seeker. I regard that as a real compliment. Happy Eastertide to you too.
What’s Easter day got to do with Jesus?
Unlikely. If he was a great man/philosopher of his time you would expect there to be plenty of documented evidence for his existence, as there is for plenty of exceptional people throughout history, but there isn’t.
(Before anyone says it, the bible is not documented historical evidence)
For some evidence please look at the link I posted to garibaldi on April 18 @3.32pm, comment 5.1.1
There is, IMO, no such thing as a christian conservative as both ideologies contradict each other.
There’s plenty of people in both those ideologies entirely comfortable with holding completely contradictory views, and flip-flopping as necessary.
True and I do go to some lengths to point out their hypocrisy.
You quoted Ezekiel in your previous argument to me on this. Do you think OT verses are a valid basis for Christian thinking?
You should know better than to ask that. Christians are quite happy to quote whatever backs up their nutty opinions. And they often don’t know their Bible nearly as well as they think they do. Hence the picture of the guy on the Internet with the verse from Leviticus tattooed on his arm explaining that homosexuality is evil. Not realising that Leviticus also forbids tattoos.
Quite possibly. However you should really direct your post towards Draco as it was he who was quoting Ezekiel to make the point about whether a Christian should support the concept of interest.
It’s in their bible so, yes, I do think it’s valid.
If they don’t then they should remove it from their bible but I’m pretty sure that would prove that their bible isn’t written by their infallible god but by men and thus proves that their religion is complete bollocks.
Of course, modern research (Piketty and others) is coming to the same conclusion as the Ancients did in that usury and capitalism is bad in that it destroys society.
Except many Christian’s would argue that the NT supersedes the OT on most matters of morality (hence why Christian’s don’t have to practice the strict dietary laws)
Pretty much, God was grumpy in the OT, smiting sinners and whatnot, then Jesus came along and started forgiving everyone instead. There’s some deep theology around the redemption of the world and the end of the old law in the books of the NT (e.g. Romans 8:1)
There’s actually significant debate about whether dietary laws were repealed in the NT or not. The council of Jerusalem sat on the issue and decided that gentiles were exempt from Jewish dietary laws and circumcision and only needed faith in God to become Christians, but that was a specific exemption for Gentiles. So certainly in a historical context, people did believe that Jewish dietary law still held after the new testament.
It’s a novel interpretation that Jesus declared all food clean for everyone, and it’s only specifically Christians that believe it literally, and some of the quoted passages to support that are definitely taken out of context, including even Mark 7:17-23 which seems in context of the original language to be about whether eating before washing your hands makes you ritually unclean or not. (Jesus declares it doesn’t, and the analogy he uses is often then applied to jewish dietary laws as well rather than simply to washing your hands before eating, which was never a religious law. The translations into English here seem to be the problem, thus reinforcing the idea that this is about people re-interpreting the bible)
I’d say if you believe you’re literally following the bible, you’re probably being either hypocritical or you’re theologically ignorant if you don’t follow old testament food laws. Of course, I think literally following any religious text is probably a bad idea as a matter of principle.
Of course, you can solve the whole debate by just not eating meat, which you should do anyway to help do your part in fighting climate change.
Seems that the NT also prohibits usury.
I read in another blog that Christian fundamentalists are infiltrating New Zealand First in a big way
And Labour wouldn’t put up a devoutly Christian candidate? How sad.
David Cunliffe has a pretty strong Christian background, his Dad was a minister. Don’t know about his personal beliefs but he had a preachy style
I think they have… 😊
Devout is fine. It is the extremist stuff that is a worry.
agree with that!
That is a lie Tanz, and you need to reflect on your telling lies.
who said they wouldn’t, have the comments here are based on guesses at best. Tamaki candidate is one, as is Mangere MP/candidate as are many other candidates Labour have standing in various electorates and on their list.
I remember so advice my father gave me when i left home to an apprenticeship away from my home .’He said don’t smoke or drink alcohol and if any bone tells you they are a good Christian ,get well away. I still wary of such people 70 years after r that advice.
Cunliffe voted for gay marriage, not exactly Christian, like most of the rest, without giving a monkies as to what the electorate wanted, as usual. The wrong side of history.
And you call yourself a Christian. 😡
You don’t know what I call myself, you don’t know me. However, the BIble is clearly against gay marriage. That is the source book of life!
No, it’s just a bunch of stuff written by men. Some of it’s actually worthwhile and some of it’s just BS.
Actually, even if you take the bible literally, it has nothing to say on committed homosexual relationships. It only talks about casual homosexuality, (which it condemns no more vigorously than straight people having sex outside of marriage, so I hope you’ve never had a hookup before, or a committed extramarital relationship for that matter! Talk about living in sin) or more specifically, men sleeping with other men out of lust. It doesn’t even talk about lesbianism at all, so it certainly couldn’t be interpreted as banning two women getting married. It has nothing to say on modern homosexuality which often involves committed relationships, if generally more sexually liberated than is the norm for straight people.
It also advises to judge not lest ye be judged, remember. Nobody gets to cast the first stone because nobody is free of sin, in your own terminology, and the law only requires legal recognition of gay marriage, not religious recognition. In that respect, you should render unto Caesar what is his- the government has that authority, not the church.
The bible is against a lot of things, but its stance on gay marriage is purely up to interpretation, and if that’s reaching even your top ten priorities of the Things The Bible Tells You To Do, then you need to read it more carefully and with better consultation to expert sources, as it’s a pretty radical left-wing liberal document for its time. (in my opinion all people of faith should closely read their books, it’s the fastest route to atheism for anyone who’s not already liberalised in their religion, and the liberal religious folks aren’t the problem because they don’t insist that the book is where they get their beliefs from.)
I hope you enjoyed this episode of Atheists Know Your Theology Better Than You.
(Also, expert sources are great for understanding just how radical the bible was- for instance, that advice to turn the other cheek wasn’t about letting someone slap you twice, it was about the social custom that slapping someone with one hand indicated disrespect, but with the other it was a challenge between equals. “Turning the other cheek” meant they had to slap you with the hand that indicated respect, so it was advising peaceful resistance by demanding the respect of your oppressors, presenting them a challenge between punishing you but treating you like an equal, or letting you off the hook. Pretty left-wing stuff to be advising peasants in a society that still practiced slavery, even if there are numerous ideological problems with the book overall)
Nice reply, I’ve read the stuff closely but don’t go for the inerrant literal interpretation. Saved a lot of brain cells that way 🙂 Still believe and go to church a lot. The Bible is a book, pretty good in parts, but it’s not God.
Had plenty of heated arguments over the years with sincere people who see things a lot more black and white. Most of them haven’t done Bible studies 101, i.e. it’s a collection of ancient documents from a time and place quite alien to the 21st century western mind.
Good point Matthew Whitehead.
One of the problems of the Bible, if you take a literal approach is in what language do you do the literal in. Because one part that many people point to justify their hatred of Homosexuality (putting aside letting hate rule you heart seems counter to the faith) reads quite differently in Aramaic. It is about the evils of rape, and it specifically includes Gay rape.
Personally, not a fan of literal approach to the bible.
My favorite irony though is that so many of the fundamentalist do take their literal fundamentalism from the King James. Not exactly a stellar translation. Things have improved in our understanding and translation of language remarkably since the late 16th, early 17th century.
Got a reference for that? You realise that Christians are not bound by OT law? Read Romans ch. 7-8, Hebrews ch.7-8, 2 Corinthians ch.3, Galatians ch.3
The bible actually says nothing about gay marriage, I’m guessing your repeating a pastor you heard.
But what is worse it’s now twice you have borne false witness on this web site.
Now I worry for you soul. Time for you to go back and read the Gospels me thinks Tanz. Try starting with Peter, it might make you remember what it means to feel love and grace.
I am from a really intense Irish Catholic background. Went to catholic schools, was even an alterboy. And I have cousins who studied to be priests and nuns. Good on Cunliffe for voting for same sex marriage. It is what JC if he is real would have wanted.
Really? I somehow doubt it.
Also, in a free society sexual partnerships are a matter of conscience not religious compulsion. For Christians there may be an argument to be made against certain behaviours but again this is a matter of conscience. I respect the struggles of many devout believers on this topic, but they should not seek to impose their own restrictions on others. The NT advises not to judge those outside the Church, nor to expect them to act like believers.
What does that line even mean “not exactly Christian” . Does that apply to Orthodox? Coptic? Hasidic? or other Christians. What sort of Christain do you have in mind? A fascist one, or a communist one? What is you definition of ‘not exactly Christian’.
I think you will find those who have their heads locked squarely in the old testament not only have theological issues, but problems with reality.
Yep and if you dig into DC’s background you would notice a rather strong Christian vein to it.
Already knew that mickysavage, it why I though he was good for the labour party. But the communist forced him out :p
…what communist? Labour doesn’t have any left.
Do you think homosexulaity should be recriminalised Tanz? Should people be locked up for having sex outside of marriage? Perhaps stop teaching evolution? Would you disown your son if he became gay?
Nope. But I think the electorate should be listened to. The majority were against gay marriage (which even flies in the face of nature), but the majority view was as usual, ignored. This is what is causing revolutions such as Trump and Brexit – the silent majority are frigging sick and tired of their elected representatives, (supposedly), giving them the fingers and running roughshod over their wishes. Something as significant as gay marriage or say the anti smacking law (a huge failure by the way, nothing has changed), should be done by binding referenda. But these days our leaders seem to think they know best, hence Brexit, Trump etc. Frigging sick of being ignored and frankly, treated with contempt. The Nats are just as bad, full of contempt for the very people (I was not one of them) who voted for them in good faith. Only Sweden has it rgiht – letting citizens vote on all the important, society changing issues.
It’s all about wrecking Western values and turning the traditional family upside down and tipping them out. That is the real agenda, rebellion to the max.
Why is the fact that he’s Christian an issue, if he was a devout Muslim who believed in Sharia law, anyone who criticised him would be slammed as racist??