|
|
1. Youth suicide and the meaning of life Sir, New
Zealand has the highest youth suicide rate in the world – two or three young
people per week kill themselves by some means. While
there may be a variety of triggers that lead to suicide; arguments with parents,
failure in exams, breaking of relationships, rejection by friends, financial
stress, loneliness, etc, if we focus on triggers or spout platitudes, we obscure
from view something far more important, something I simply don’t hear
addressed. Our
culture teaches kids that the world is ultimately meaningless. It does this at
every level of the education system and through virtually all media. How? By
denying that the universe has been made and therefore has a purpose. You don’t
have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that if the universe is ultimately
meaningless, then so also are you as a part of the universe. Now
while this ultimate meaninglessness can be lived with if kept out of your face,
when some stress in life occurs it can rise up and grab the young person by the
throat as it were, enabling them to pop the pills, tie the rope or pull the
trigger. If we teach kids that life is meaningless, then we shouldn’t be
surprised if some of them conclude that life is not worth living. Renton Maclachlan 2. The death penalty and the 'sacredness of life' Sir, Alex
Colman (March 18th) says my question regarding the death penalty, ‘who says
that life is sacred?’ does not require an answer. He implied that obviously life is sacred (inviolate) and
therefore there should be no death penalty.
Well I’m afraid it is not at all obvious, so an answer is required. At
all levels of our public education system, and promoted through virtually all
media, human beings are presented as chance products of a mindless universe.
This view was promoted vigorously on the recent ‘Human Body’ program
on TV, and the Broadcasting Standards Authority has just ruled that by
presenting it without competitors, it was not biased as it accurately
represented current scientific orthodoxy. Such
a view however destroys the idea that human life is sacred, saying that
ultimately it is without meaning and value.
And
this view is being applied! We have
Government sanctioned executions of 15000 innocent unborn children each year,
and talk of legislating euthanasia; we have an increasing number of people
killing other people; and we have one of the highest rates of youth suicide in
the world. Yet ironically we have
the life of murderers being defended on moral grounds! You
can’t argue meaningfully from this view that human life is inviolate and the
death penalty morally indefensible because ultimately within it, all moral
arguments are meaningless. Renton
Maclachlan, 3. Colombine High School & Hitler Sir, The
shootings at the Columbine High School in Denver, Colorado, once again have
Hitler and his Nazi’s implicated and demonised. But the demonising process distorts reality and blinds.
Hitler’s support did not come from a handful of disaffected youths but from a
large majority of the pre-war German population. Likewise
today, Hitler’s heirs are found not just among those that explicitly associate
with his name, as the trench coat brigade apparently did. They are
found among those who support the ideas he promoted, but who would never draw a
connection to him because of the demonised image that prevails. For
example those who support abortion and euthanasia could have felt very
comfortable living in pre-war Germany, and no doubt would have voted
enthusiastically for Hitler’s approach which was so near their own. Renton Maclachlan 4. Kenneth Starr & ‘Presidential Assassin Hall of Fame Sir, Tom
Scott, in his cartoon of September 23rd, showing three candidates for his
‘Presidential Assassin Hall of Fame’ -
John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald and Kenneth Starr, got his third
candidate wrong by a country mile. To
be accurate as opposed to being politically correct, in place of Starr he should
have put Bill Clinton shooting himself in the foot.
Why
is Starr made out to be the baddy when all he is doing is exposing the utterly
appalling behaviour of the President? Why
should a person judicially empowered to pursue the truth be put on a par with
cold blooded murderers? Perhaps
because we no longer believe in truth, and so twist things to our own ends.
As the Editor of the Post basically said the other day, lying is OK.
Well if lying is OK, then it’s OK - in court, at work, in the media, in
marriage - and certainly don’t expect kids to grow up valuing honesty, when
they see us treating it so casually. Nor
should we be surprised as our country goes down the ethical gurgler. Renton Maclachlan Sir, The
High Court in London ruled the Augusto Pinochet was immune from arrest because
he was Head of State at the time he allegedly committed the crimes he is accused
of. Some
may say, ‘But that’s not just. Since
when have Heads of State been above the law? Isn’t there something wrong
here?’ If
you believe in absolute standards and a higher law, yes.
But if not, no. Why shouldn’t Heads of State be above some law?
Who’s to say they shouldn’t be the originator of law and not bound by
those they make? That
is actually no more arbitrary and lacking in foundation than the present law of
New Zealand. Maybe we appeal to
some sort of historically derived convention, but there are plenty of
historical precedents for dictators also.
The differences should not blind us to the arbitrary nature of both.
All law grounded in humanity is arbitrary. Renton Maclachlan Sir, There
is one simple solution to the ‘toxic television’ Karl Du Fresne referred to
in his ‘Opinion’ article (April 7th) that apparently is so far outside the
square for most it escapes mention. Get
rid of the TV. Don’t just turn it
off . Get rid of it! Right out of
the house - and for good! Why
for crying out loud is there so much moaning about the low quality of programmes,
the banality of Holmes, and the endless Ads, etc?
Is it that this thing has become the one absolute essential for living -
without which we would die? Has it
got to where no matter what is on, no matter how inane, trivial, toxic or
debauched - or how much of it is of this nature, we will watch it? Get a life! The TV media bods may consider themselves God’s gift to us all - mistaking delusions for reality - and most New Zealander’s apparently are conned. However this is one home where they have zero influence. They are just not part of our culture. Life is too rich and too short to waste on illusions. Renton Maclachlan7. ‘We have to stop being so bloody pompous’ Sir, Dave
Tomlinson via an interview with the Evening Post’s Phil Pennington (Insight,
Nov 23rd), takes pot shots at everyone he thinks can be identified as an
‘evangelical’. The article
reports Tomlinson as saying, ‘We have to stop being so bloody pompous’. With
all due respect, if he stopped ‘being so bloody pompous’ himself, then
perhaps we could follow his example. Renton Maclachlan 8. Sentencing violent criminals Sir, On Saturday 14th Dec, you reported the case
of a 25 year old man who pleaded guilty to two counts of kidnapping, seventeen
charges of burglary, one of robbery, one of aggravated burglary, and two of
using a document with the intent to defraud. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment
for each kidnapping, one year for each burglary, four years for the aggravated
burglary, two for the robbery and two years each for the attempts to defraud.
This adds up in my reckoning to 39 years, not a bad sentence when one
knows, as I do, the huge amount of trauma, loss and insecurity this person
caused his victims, in particular his last kidnap victim. If that was it, one could rest assured at
least the offenses had been taken seriously.
However one then read the last sentence in the report: `The
terms were to be served concurrently’. Suddenly
a 39 year sentence is reduced to six as a maximum! Pray tell me, how does thirty nine years
mean thirty nine years when in reality it is only six or less?
And how can one serve sentences concurrently? It is as much an impossibility as it would have been for the
offences to have been committed concurrently.
Concurrent sentence serving is an absurdity. On top of this, victims continually get shut
out of the system, and virtually never - as in this case - have any restitution
made to them in spite of their losses. This
is just one case in thousands where victims and those who stand with them can
only shrug their shoulders in disillusionment.
Will we ever say as a community, that we have had enough of this judicial
madness? 9. ‘Christmas: What if it’s true?' Sir, Libby
Purves, in her otherwise brilliant article, ‘Christmas: What if it’s
true?” (Dec 14) said, ‘Atheists often point out sternly that it is perfectly
possible to be a moral and ethical person without religious belief: and so it
is.’ This
claim by atheists is nonsense, so Libby shouldn’t have blessed it with her
agreement. To
claim in this way to be a moral and ethical person is to presuppose a
universally applicable moral code against which human behaviour is measured.
For atheists no such code exists. An
atheist’s moral code is what they choose for themselves.
If they choose to kill babies or Jews they are moral; if they choose to
lie and cheat, or be kind and compassionate, they are moral.
Ultimately there is no difference between right and wrong. By definition
everyone is moral! Therefore to
assert from within their own worldview that they are moral is hardly to make the
most profound of statements! For
their statement to have meaning they must step out of their own worldview and
into one they claim to utterly reject. In
doing so they shoot themselves in the foot, as well as acknowledge there is a
real, permanent difference between right and wrong. Libby
should have pointed out that one consequence of ditching the worldview which
provides the deep meaning for Christmas, is that philosophically, meaning is
ditched from all of life, morality included. Sir, How ironic that Lloyd Geering (March 29th)
should rail against `fundamentalist Christians’ for claiming to have the
truth, while he himself does precisely the same thing.
He asserts absolutely it’s a relativistic world; that he knows the
origin of all religions; that Christianity is wrong; that `God’ and `Christ’
and `Resurrection’ are just symbolic and humanly created, having no objective
reality; that there is no supernature, only nature; that we are God, through
being the only standard-makers and meaning-givers there are for life.
He even claims to know about salvation, though clearly he’s got no idea
what it would look like. Given `in the universe everything, including
religion, (is) relative’, as he claims, then I presume he would not object if
someone knocked down his door, smacked him in the face, raped his wife, slit his
kids throats, and burnt his house down. I
mean everything is relative isn’t
it? If someone thinks such actions
are right for them, who does Lloyd Geering think he is to say they are wrong?
If everything is relative, then everything is relative! It’s all very well to pontificate from
isolated ivory towers, the comfort of his rocking chair, or the pages of the
Post. But when his ideas stalk the
streets of Kelburn and literally smack him in the face, it could be another
matter. Then again, he may rejoice
the ideas he’s given his life promoting are being lived out around him! Renton Maclachlan 11. The `World Court' and nuclear weapons Sir, The
`World Court' has ruled that nuclear weapons should be outlawed, calling them
`the ultimate evil’- but was undecided about their use in self-defence.
Many have greeted the decision with jubilation.
However something lurks here which would be laughable, if it wasn't so
serious. If
the court had said nuclear weapons were OK, what then would these people have
said? I imagine it would have been something like, "Who do the judges think
they are - God?" or,
"Stuff the World Court. It's out of touch!"
So, if we like the decision, we praise and accept it.
If we don't, we ridicule and reject it! Clearly
the appeal to the world court is not an appeal for real justice, or to any real
standard of right and wrong. Transparently
it is an attempt to gain an appearance of legitimacy for what we want.
In other words it's all about power and manipulation, not ethics, even
though cloaked in ethical words. This shouldn't surprise us. It’s comes straight out of the philosophical desert late 20th century secular cultures are stuck in, a wasteland far worse than any produced by a nuclear bomb. The first move necessary to get out of this hole is to acknowledge there is a real higher law on which justice is based, and that this law is grounded in the character of the Creator of the Universe. Until this move is made, our appeals to `justice’ and our ethical statements, are actually without substance. Renton Maclachlan
13. Stephen J Gould at Victoria University Sir, Recently, 'Living Treasure' (the title 'Living Treasure' was given to a number of celebrities invited to NZ to speak or perform during the time of the New Zealand 1990 celebrations. RM), paleontologist, ardent evolutionist Professor S J Gould spoke to an overflow audience at Victoria University on the Darwinian Revolution in Thought. He was applauded loudly at the end and thanked profusely for such a stimulating and thought-provoking lecture, one which gave insight into the breadth of his scholarship, reading, and cultural appreciation. What did this man say that brought such a response? He told us that the truly radical thing Darwin said (which he agreed with) was that nature was purposeless and amoral. He said very few followers of Darwin over the past 150 years had had the guts to acknowledge this. Most had naively believed in 'progress' and 'meaning', ideas totally foreign to Darwinism, rather than being 'liberated' by realising there was no purpose to anything. Man, as much a part of nature and as much an accident as anything else, was also without meaning and morals. How could anyone applaud such nonsense? It amounted to applauding one's own meaninglessness and amorality. Yet the university hierarchy was there and applauded! If Gould is correct, and given his starting point there is no doubt he is, what is the point of universities and their stringent rules and regulations? For goodness sake, if things don't mean anything, why bother to speak and why does he rant so against creationists? Isn't he assuming the very things he denies? At the end of his talk he eulogised wisdom by tearing a passage out of context from the book of Proverbs in the Bible. Ironically his talk had all the characteristics of folly as described in that same book. Renton Maclachlan PS: There was an interesting sequel to the publication of the above letter which I learned of about a year later. A lecturer at Victoria University who is a Christian, saw the letter, photo copied it, and, I understand, posted it on most of the notice boards at the university. I only found this out when he came to speak at the church I am part of and I introduced myself to him. He then told me of what he had done. 14. Boring moralistic rhetoric from homosexuals Sir, Once
again (July 10th) the boring moralistic rhetoric pours from homosexuals or their
sympathisers. And once again some
of them try their hand at Biblical theology but as usual turn it into a
self-serving justification of moral abominations and unnatural practices.
Robert Perry strings six negative adjectives together to try and impress
upon us how Presbyterians are - you guessed it - homophobic! But
then S R Hammond excels him/herself in getting the Bible wrong. 1.
Where does Jesus say that unrepentant sodomites are his ‘brothers’? 2.
None of the ten commandments reads, ‘Love they neighbour as thyself’. 3.
The ‘image of God’ does not include moral perversion and unnatural
acts. Yes, sorry, God is selective. 4.
We are born different - male or female - but no, ‘hermaphrodite,
lesbian and homosexual’, are not some of the God created differences. These
latter derived from human rebellion against God and his created order. 5.
No where does it say in the Bible it is a cardinal sin to condemn our
fellow man. 6.
No where does any God-given right of equality mean all human actions are
acceptable. Six
wrong out of six has to be a fail. Renton Maclachlan, 15. A ‘...dreary and inadequate abortion clinic...’ Sir, I
was interested to note on reading the Insight article on Wellington Hospital,
‘The $52 Million Question’ (July 13), that a priority for the first 20
million spent, was ‘Moving Parkview Clinic on to the hospital campus’.
This was elaborated on by saying that Parkview is a ‘...dreary and
inadequate abortion clinic...’ I
guess the present or new facilities could have the sort of treatment Hitler gave
to the death camps - pleasant landscaping; nice, positive and encouraging words
over the entrance - or perhaps happy, smilely faces could be pasted on every
window and wall. I mean who wants
death facilities to be ‘dreary’ places?
And following Hitler, who on earth wants them to be inadequate!
What is needed is efficiency, dis-assembly line stuff - only the unborn
don’t have gold teeth to scavenge, or enough hair for mattress’s.
I guess their skulls could be used as paper weights. In
‘the Proposed Design’ I searched in vain for a plain identification of where
the new, bright, exciting, and efficient Clinic was to go.
The nearest I could find to it was in number 7 - ‘mortuary’. Renton Maclachlan Sir, Comments
made by Commissioner of Children Roger MacLay about the moral abuse deceptively
committed against children by the Wellington City Gallery with their Keith
Herring exhibition, made me think him quite responsible.
But his recent proposal to outlaw smacking hasn’t produce the same
result. The
anti-smacking brigade are either illogical, or have a false view of human
nature. Their
flawed ‘logic’ says: ‘because physical discipline is physical, it is
abuse’, or, ‘because some physical discipline is abuse, therefore all
physical discipline is abuse’, You may as well say ‘because some speech is
abusive therefore all speech is abusive’, which is just as silly.
The conclusions don't follow. Human
nature, especially that of children, seems understood to be morally angelic,
never ever needing to be directed forcefully into morally acceptable paths.
Such a view flies in the face of reality, and runs directly counter to
what our Maker says regarding human nature at present. Yes,
of course physical discipline may at times be abuse. But for goodness, the solution is not to outlaw valid
physical discipline but deal with the abuse and the philosophical and
situational grounds that lead to it.
Further,
I find it ironic that the Commissioner of Children crusades against parents and
physical discipline of children, yet fails to crusade on behalf of the 15000
plus unborn children physically killed dead every year by State sanctioned
killers. 17. A despicable ‘get rich quick scheme’ Sir, I
am not financially rich, nor want to be, nor am likely to be (though I am
immeasurably rich in many other ways), but I find it hypocritical in the extreme
for the media to brand the financial scheme discussed in ACT MP, Owen
Jenning’s office, as a ‘get rich quick scheme’, as though this is somehow
a low down, despicable thing for them to plot. Who
knows how many New Zealanders every week are attempting to ‘get rich quick’
through Lotto, Scratch Kiwi, Horses, Dogs, Casinos, Poker machines, and in a
rapidly multiplying number of other ways, and yet we never hear these cast in a
negative light but as fun, excitement and entertainment, and all surrounded with
light and colour and eye blurring action. These
all suck millions of dollars out of the disposable income area of local
economies (over the whole nation that is billions of dollars!) with the
corresponding loss of jobs, production and a host of other things.
And this is not to mention the increase of pressures applied through them
to individuals and families as a result of the loss of this money from their
budgets, and the massive increase in need for non-productive social service
agencies to deal with the many and varied detrimental effects. Why
aren’t the real villains targeted? Renton Maclachlan, 18. A ‘...softly spoken woman' abortionist Sir, How
ironic that Margaret Sparrow, chief abortionist at the Parkview abortion clinic,
who has killed thousands of children before they could be born, should be
photographed alongside the photographs of two smiling children. (‘Rebel for a
cause’, Post Sept 2) ‘Its
hard to imagine,’ says the interviewer, ‘this softly spoken woman’,
‘(c)onservatively dressed in tartan skirt, navy sweater and cardigan with
immaculate black hair and piecing blue eyes,’ ‘on the leather couch of her
modest Kelburn home’, ‘has been at the forefront of protests for ...abortion
for more than 25 years.’ Likewise
it is hard to imagine that refined, immaculately groomed and outfitted,
classical music loving, devoted family men, who were Nazi death camp commanders,
presided over the brutal murders of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
They also were masters at semantic camouflage. Renton Maclachlan, 19. A materialist's solution to abortion Sir, Jenny
Shipley, in heralding the latest Government proposals to reduce abortion,
articulated classic philosophical materialism.
The reasoning goes like this: We
have a problem, ie abortion. As
material is all there is, the problem must be a material problem.
To solve a material problem you need a material solution.
What material solution could solve abortion?
Great Scott, of course! Why didn’t we think of it before? The pill!
The
problem is, abortion is not a material problem at all!
It’s a moral problem. However
because materialists deny morality (at least they do when it suits them), they
cannot not address the issue as a moral problem and so completely miss the
point. Unfortunately the Government and Mrs Shipley have functioned
in this case as materialists and so have missed the point and will solve
nothing. Renton Maclachlan 20. Let's make abortion more readily available Sir, We
should worried - it seems like our leaders have not grasped elementary logic.
Phil
Goff says the the present abortion laws have failed to curb the rising incidence
of abortion, therefore we need to make abortion more readily available.
Pardon? Renton Maclachlan 21. Evolutionists and narrow minded comments Sir, C
Burns (May 9th) in reference to evolution said that it was ‘logical
and well documented’. He also
said that ‘… to suggest that evolution did not and is not happening is
narrow-minded and unfortunately typical of many religious people’. Unfortunately
Burn’s poncy, narrow-minded comments are typical of all too many evolutionists
who assert ad nauseum that evolution is documented etc, without offering any
evidence to support their statements. Other
recent examples can be found in the National Geographic, the New Scientist, and
the Listener. I
challenge Burns to give us some hard, incontrovertible evidence to back up his
claims. Why doesn’t he begin with
the origin of life, because for a process to occur it must start occurring.
If it is impossible for biological evolution to start, it has never
occurred, full stop. I
invite Burns to put his money where his mouth is. Renton Maclachlan 22. Presbyterians and homosexuality Sir, Don
Borrie, in commenting on the possible split in the Presbyterian Church over
whether or not it should ordain or licence as ministers or elders those who
commit homosexual acts said, ‘...also, what will happen to people who refuse
to declare their sexuality?’ I
wouldn’t have thought that would create a problem because there are only two
sexes! In all my life I’ve only
had a problem working out whether I was looking at a male or a female one or two
times. Even in these cases, if I
had been allowed a closer inspection I’m sure I would not have had a problem
determining the sex of the individual. As
it is I’ve never had a problem when looking at a minister to know what sex
I’m looking at. Now
what could be a problem for the Presbyterians, is knowing whether or not the
potential minister or elder secretly commits perverted sexual acts - perverted
that is as defined by the Bible which these same ministers or elders are
supposed to uphold, and by the creation which homosexual acts violate. Renton Maclachlan 23. Lambeth Conference & Anglo’s African Bishops Sir, Well
there is some consolation. Even
though the Presbytarians didn’t get it right at their General Assembly, at
least the Anglican’s did in ruling at their Lambeth Conference in England that
sodomites cannot be ordained as priests. Clearly
what the New Zealand Pressies need are a few more equivalents of the Anglo’s
African Bishops, who haven’t succumbed to accept perversion of language,
perversion of doctrine, or perversion of practice, as many of their western
counterparts have. Renton Maclachlan 24. Homosexuals and the First Commandment Sir, Somewhat emotively, Tim Wright (18th March)
charges all Christians with being `ignorant and morally corrupt’. He makes this charge because he claims some people were
`throwing abuse at the members of the Devotion Parade’, and that these people
were Christians. Now I don’t know
whether any such people were doing any such thing as I wasn’t there - I would
not attend such a parade. Given the
tone of his letter I suspect a degree of overstatement. But putting that to one side, Tim made a
pretty basic mistake in his letter. He
said, `...they (Christians) forget the first precept of Christianity which is to
love thy neighbour as thyself.’ With all due respect, Jesus said the first
and greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind.
To love your neighbour comes second.
It is precisely because homosexual acts are so clearly stated to be
contrary to the Creator’s moral and design intentions for human beings that
Christians are also opposed to such practises. On the basis of the second command they then
warn people indulging in such practices they are running foul of God’s word
and world. Such warnings express
love just as do warnings about
dangerous corners on roads, warnings on poison bottles, or warnings about the
destructive effects of addictive drugs. Given the tone of his letter, anyone who
disagrees with homosexual acts and their promotion and says so - no matter how
mildly, would cop the charge of throwing abuse. Renton Maclachlan 25. The Governor General and the 10 Commandments Sir, The
Post editorial of October 23rd, focused on an address presented by the Governor
General, Sir Michael Hardie Boys, to the Wellington Prayer Breakfast and
excerpted in the Post’s ‘Friday Forum’. The
editorial said, ‘The Ten Commandments are still pretty sensible guidelines for
living, even in the 21st century and regardless of whether one is an adherent of
the Jesus story or not.’ This
statement is a fundamentally flawed. The primary commandment of the ten is the
first which says, ‘I am the Lord your God…You shall have no other Gods
besides me’. The other nine commandments build on and depend on this one.
Many over the last couple of hundred years
have thought it possible, even desirable, to have the commands - and the safety
and security they bring - without the God of the commands to intimidate us. But
leave out the God of the commands and the commands reduce to suggestions without
moral clout. Superficially they may look the same, but actually they change from
absolute values to relative values. You shall not commit adultery? You’re
joking! On every hand our culture encourages us to commit adultery. Without the
Creator of the universe acknowledged as commanding it and judging violations,
each person is free to do as they want, which is precisely where we are at, and
we are paying for it. Renton Maclachlan Sir, Each
year a human interest story of a parents trauma of seeing their five years old
off to school appears around this time. Yet
the trauma for parent and child alike is so unnecessary.
Why send them to school at all? Why
not keep them home to enjoy them and educate them yourselves?
And increasing number of parents throughout the country are doing just
that and finding breaking the established educational moulds and expectations is
just fantastic. After ten years of
it our family is immeasurably richer for it. Renton
Maclachlan 27. Smoking - and mint, dill and cumin Sir, So
smoking has been hit again - 5 cents extra tax per fag.
If the money is to pay for the health services required to deal with
smoking induced health problems smokers voluntarily bring on themselves, fair
enough. Far too many people off
load the costs of their ‘life style choices’ onto the rest of us. However
it seems the Labour government is concerned here with more than just getting
people to carry the costs of their own choices.
For all the world it looks like Helen Clark and others are on a moral
crusade, as though smoking is one of the worst of all possible evils and must be
stubbed out – or at least priced out. As
I reflected on this, some insightful words from the past sprang
to mind. ‘Straining out
gnats and swallowing camels’ is what they said - taking a high and mighty
stand about some dried weeds, while neglecting the really important things,
‘justice, mercy and right living’. Just
about sums up these modern day Pharisees. 28. Frying under 5000
mushroom clouds - big deal, or Sir, Professor Lloyd Geering has prophesied (Post, July 6) that the writing is on the wall for us human beings as it was for the dinosaurs. "Our careless destruction of the earth," he says, is "because we do not appreciate fully what it means to be truly human." And what does it mean to be truly human? We must recognise that the idea we are created is a myth - that actually we are a byproduct of evolution, "thrown up almost by accident at the end of a vast span of cosmic time." Why did he insert the word "almost"? It either is an accident or it isn't. Is he trying to have a bob both ways - to cash in on the Judeo/Christian ideas of purpose and design while holding the evolutionary scenario which denies them? He goes on to say that the overthrow of traditional explanations of human origins "has been a revolution...we are just beginning to work through its implications." This sounds very learned and discerning but is patently false. The implications of this view have always been as plain as day to those who have had the guts to to face them. If we have been thrown up by accident then there is no real morality or purpose and any words that suggest them are meaningless. To buy this idea is to reduce human beings to zero. Is that what he wants us to appreciate? He implies we should do something to save our future but that assumes we are worth saving. Where does that come from? The product of a cosmic Monte Carlo game has no value to save so if we all fried tomorrow under 5000 mushroom clouds, big deal. There would be no tears shed at our demise and no obituary written. The universe would simply revert to the state it was in for the 4.5 billion years prior to our arrival. Perhaps it is important to appreciate what it means to be truly human but clearly Professor Geering doesn't. Renton Maclachlan 29.
To
Liz Gordon - NZ Member of Parliament, re Bill Liz
Gordon Thank you for your response to our letter opposing the Prostitution Reform Bill. I have some comments about what you wrote. You said: ‘Removing the illegality of soliciting hardly makes it a compulsory industry.’ We did not say it would, nor do I know anyone who would say so. Thus your comment is a straw man. What it seems to indicate however is that you are not taking into account the educational aspects of law - that is, that a law sends a message to the population at large and informs them about what is and is not acceptable behaviour. What decriminalising will do is send out the message that prostitution is acceptable behaviour. Legalising any behaviour, legitimises that behaviour, and once behaviour that has been suppressed through law is legitimized, the incidence of it will increase. This in turn will increase the harmful effects of it, because with increased incidence, the total amount of harm will increase. The negative consequence of prostitution will not cease simply because it is made legal. The harm is inherent in the behaviour and will not stop at the passing of a law, only by the individual prostitute ceasing to prostitute themselves. You said: ‘There is no justification in keeping prostitution illegal until it can be convincingly demonstrated that legalised prostitution “entices men to be unfaithful” to their wives.’ Nor is this what we said! Prostitution per se increases the incidence of unfaithfulness relative to a situation where no prostitution exists. If you increase the availability of prostitution, as this Bill will do through legitimizing prostitution, you will increase the incidence of unfaithfulness. Of course it is not the only thing that increases unfaithfulness (i.e. pornography also does) but it does so never the less. By legalising prostitution, you will increase unfaithfulness simply because the amount will increase as a result of what happens when an illegitimate behaviour is made legitimate. I do not know to what degree you care about faithfulness, sexual or otherwise, but I care a great deal about it. You said: ‘Men do not use prostitutes because they are available, except in the sense that if prostitutes were not available they would find other physical outlets for their desire. On the contrary prostitution has developed to assuage those desires. The mind boggles on this one - but I do note your Freudian slip that ‘men use prostitutes’. Exactly right! Prostitutes are ‘USED’! That is one reason my wife and I oppose it. Prostitution dehumanizes, and depersonalises the prostitute through them being ‘used’ – you have said it yourself. I for one have a great deal of difficulty getting my head around the fact that women’s groups and a woman MP - actually most if not all woman MP’s - would legitimize through law behaviour that uses, thus dehumanizes and depersonalises anyone, but primarily in this case, women. I have too much respect for women to be party to anything that dehumanizes and depersonalises them, and am surprised that you as a woman are willing for women to be used in this way. You said: ‘Can you demonstrate to me a single country where outlawing prostitutes has resulted in their non-existence? With all due respect, it bothers me greatly that we have people in Parliament who do not seem to have grip on logic, and who thus persist in using straw men arguments to justify their stance. Who has ever said that ‘outlawing prostitutes’ will result ‘in their non-existence’? We certainly did not. We are not dreamers! The purpose of a law against unacceptable behaviour is to reduce the incidence of it, and to drive underground those perverse enough to persist in it never the less. In an ideal world a law may be sufficient to remove the behaviour altogether, but we do not live in an ideal world. Laws against pedophilia reduce the incidence of it and drive those who practice it underground. Laws against theft provide a check against thieving, and drive thieves underground, or at least into the night – mostly. Laws against smoking are intended to reduce the amount of smoking that is done. Does the Government think that by passing laws to limit smoking that it is going to make smoking non-existent? Of course not. But it is intent, never the less, on reducing the amount of smoking that goes on. Any purported ‘disastrous consequences for’ prostitutes ‘or their clients’ due to them being ‘driven underground’ results from the disaster that prostitution inherently is. You will not stop the so-called disasters by legalizing and thus legitimizing this disastrous behaviour. You will only increase the number of ‘disasters’. You said: I cannot support your proposal and believe that Tim’s bill provides the best option for a democratic society’ I’m sorry, but I can’t see the point of you introducing the idea of ‘a democratic society’ into the discussion. Virtually every other MP who has expressed support for the Bill and has given me reasons for their support have said the Bill will allow, and I use Jim Anderton’s words ‘…for more effective health promotion work and enable issues of prostitutes’ employment rights to be addressed.’ While I find these reasons specious, shortsighted, and morally unacceptable, at least they relate, even if in a specious manner, to the issue. ‘A democratic society’ does not appear to relate at all. Parliament lowered the drinking age against strong opposition from those at the coalface where the effects of alcohol abuse are seen. The results are now becoming evident suggesting the critics were right and Parliament acted unwisely. I predict the same will happen if this action you are bent on taking is implemented. The statistics highlighting the reality of what is occurring at present are against you. For the sake of the women (and men) being used and damaged in New Zealand at present as a result of prostitution, and for the increased numbers who will be used and damaged in the future if this Bill is passed, I would ask you to reconsider your support for the bill. Your Sincerely Renton Maclachlan Tell a friend about this site: http://www.tonguesrevisited.com To Top of Page |