This is a bit mean, but, do you think god could help them with their grammar? And their understanding of Juedo-Christian ethics, and while god’s at it, their ability to reason as well?
As DPF blogs, the Christian Democrats have morphed into the Kiwi party. It’s taken them a few years and a few transmogrifications to get to this stage, but that shining intellect Larry Baldock is still there, with his bible bashing views. As far as I can tell, all the party has at present is a web site. It would just be kind of nice if they could find themselves an editor for it. The site is full of egregious grammatical errors: random apostrophe’s (that’s deliberate on my part, by the way), random commas, the wrong affect/effect, and so on. Not a good look for people who think they can improve the structure of democracy in NZ.
They want to improve the process of citizens’ referendum’s [sic]. Wouldn’t be because they are starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel for their own citizens’ referendum?
Then there’s the vague reference to Judeo-Christian ethics, listed as one of the Kiwi party’s commitments:
the Judeo-Christian ethic in democracy, that each person has the right to be heard and effect [sic] the issues that effect [sic] them
I can’t find an account of Judeo-Christian ethics that includes a reference to each person having the right to be heard in a democracy. I have no doubt that many Christians endorse this idea, but ascribing it to some ethical system is a bit rich. In any case, I always thought the the Judeo-Christian tradition was deeply hierarchical, with god at the top, then various church authorities below her or him. And whatever Christianity is about, one of the things it is committed to is revealed truth. Truth is not up for grabs in a vote. The church has to be committed to speaking the truth in season and out, no matter what people on the street think. It is fundamentally opposed to some sort of one person, one vote way of determining how society should operate.
In fact, Baldock et al are simply trying to reinforce the validity of their cause by claiming that god is on their side. It’s an old rhetorical strategy, and really, not a very successful one, given the vicious nature of some of the actions that people have claimed were carried out for god.
Illiterate, incoherent, and arguing from authority. And they want you to vote for them.
I know, I know – I’m being mean and I am just a wee bit sorry about it. It’s shooting fish in a barrel, but really – couldn’t they do just a little better, given that god is on their side?