It was inevitable. Sooner or later a boat filled with desperate people would set out from India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, whatever, for New Zealand. We have been “protected” to date only by an accident of geography–New Zealand’s relative distance. Australia has faced the problem for decades.
A group of Sri Lankan poor (allegedly Tamils previously caught up in the former civil war) have boarded a boat large enough to make it all the way here. They have been declaring their intent to sail to New Zealand to seek asylum. The Prime Minister, Mr Key has made dark hints that he has received intelligence briefings that leave him in no doubt that New Zealand was the intended destination. Others have accused him of overreacting. We believe Mr Key in this instance.
The Commentariat is having conniptions. The most consistent amongst us are represented by Green MP, Keith Locke and Amnesty International caudillo, Patrick Holmes. They have urged the desperate plight of the economic refugees. Doubtless they have suffered grievously, and New Zealand beckons as a wonderland. Even the poorest in New Zealand would be comparatively rich to them. They have urged pity as a motivation to accept and welcome these folk. We reiterate: these are the consistent Commentariat members.
Others in the Commentariat are emphatic in their refusal to have anything to do with the boat people. Their posturing is empty. Offensively hypocritical. The entire ethos of New Zealand is built upon the principle that all people, by right of being human, have a legitimate and just claim to a certain amount of other people’s property. Call it “a living wage”, a “fair go”, maintaining dignity–whatever. It’s all the same in the end. The supreme authority, our semi-divinised state, has both a duty and license to extract property by force from some and deliver it to others who have less. Everybody believes this. Except Christians who read their Bibles, but they don’t count. Sure, the Commentariat maintains an inter-mural argument about how much extraction, and upon which subjects it will be bestowed, and on what terms and conditions, but these are mere details. Everyone acknowledges the universal principle of the thing.
Why, then, the emphatic rejection of the boat people? Why are they “beyond the pale”? Are they not human? Do they not have economic rights? Does not their being human entitle them to a just extraction by force from others better off to make them more economically equal? Apparently not. Why? we wonder. Out of one side of his mouth our Prime Minister argues vehemently for involuntary seizure of the property of some (via taxation) and for its distribution to others, appealing to justice, rectitude, and rights. Everybody, everybody agrees–apart from those obnoxious Christians who read their Bibles. But out of the other side of his mouth he brusquely rejects these desperate folk.
When it’s boat people, the universal principles of human rights are suddenly found to have geographic limitations. Our gods turn out to be local deities after all. Our self-righteous, simpering notions of justice transform into harsh xenophobia, just like that. Who would have thought.
The Commentariat has some explaining to do. If the goose’s sauce is withheld from the gander we smell hypocrisy in the kitchen. Maybe the high faluting principles of Unbelief are worthless and empty, venal and self-serving? Maybe justice and rights are not universal after all, but have geographical boundaries. But if so, why not local body limitations? Why not provincial boundaries? Why not racial boundaries? In other words, universal rights are either ubiquitously relevant and applicable, or not at all.
Clearly the Commentariat does not believe our religious version of economic human rights is universal. Therefore, it has no legitimate application in New Zealand either. Extraction of property from some to bestow it upon others is nothing other than trafficking in stolen goods. Imagine–our entire society built upon a grand edifice of theft. Conjuring appeals to universal human rights are merely a Klingon cloaking device disguising that our nation is, underneath it all, one vast criminal enterprise.
Bless those Sri Lankan boat people for de-cloaking our pretentious hypocrisy. And, yes, may the Living God have mercy upon them.
Tags: Human Rights · Rights and Freedoms · Sri Lankan Boat People15 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
It seems appropriate to note that under the ideals of Christianity, we should protect the weak when it is within our power to do so. This is based upon the knowledge of man’s inherent worth, being made in the image of God.
One could be misled by the above article into thinking that Christianity was “every man for himself”. Contrary to this, I believe that John is opposed to welfare funded by force, but not necessarily welfare that would be voluntarily funded, e.g. by donations.
First rule of the Klingon Empire – we don’t talk about the cloaking device !
I thought JTwas supporting the Christian ideal of protecting the weak etc. He is however pointing out the secular humanist version of the same ideal seems somewhat selective in its application.
“The supreme authority, our semi-divinised state, has both a duty and license to extract property by force from some and deliver it to others who have less.”
I also think JT is noting a certain hypocrisy in this, ie we justify taking by force on the grounds of helping the needy, but when some needy come along who dont suit us then we wont help them. Only approved needy may apply.
“Australia has faced the problem for decades.” heres john clarke (aka fred dagg) on the subject in australia:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ClarkeAndDawe#p/u/0/wOI_skq5TuM
the only “problem” australia has faced is the paranoia intentionally incited by politicians?
jt says “apart from those obnoxious Christians who read their Bibles”. i guess he is referring to ‘thou shalt not steal’, but anything else?
i think he needs to read some of matts posts about the difference between governments and individuals. for example matt says:
“It would be wrong and criminal for a private citizen to take another person’s property by force — even if they believed the money was going to a worthy cause. However, Governments do this all the time when they impose taxes. It would be wrong for me to lay down laws for my neighbour to obey and then deprive her of her liberty if she fails to comply; this would constitute blackmail and kidnapping. Yet governments lay down laws for others and incarcerate criminals who do not comply with them. Governments hold a monopoly on certain uses of force, and hence, have rights to use force that private citizens do not. The fact that citizens have duties to refrain from certain forms of violence, force and retribution does not mean that the government has the same duty.” (http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/07/contra-mundum-pacifism-and-just-wars.html)
so who is right, matt or jt?
i smell someone lawyering the bible to say whatever they want it to. what a joke.
jt says: “Extraction of property from some to bestow it upon others is nothing other than trafficking in stolen goods.”
would matt reply: “I would start by drawing a distinction between what its right and wrong for an individual to do and what its right and wrong for a person acting as a government official. These are not the same, a police officer or a judge has the right to do things which a private individual does not have the right to do.” ?
(http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/06/lawful-authority-and-just-wars.html)
There is no contradiction between Matt and JT here. Matt’s comments about governments having moral abilities that individual’s do not, does not equate to governments being able to do anything they wish.
I don’t think I have the moral authority to take my neighbours money by force (steal) but I do think the state has the right to tax. But I don’t think that the state has the right to tax any amount, nor to spend it on things they shouldn’t.
Really, does anyone here who thinks taxing is okay therefore think the state is justified in doing anything they want with that money?
bethyada,
that’s fair enough, and of course i agree, but shouldn’t matthew 20:21 then say “render unto caesar the things that are caesars, provided you approve of what he will spend it on”? also romans 13 may need amending (http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/05/pacifism-the-bible-and-the-sin-of-selfishness.html).
jeremy will probably tell me i’m wrong, but i’m assuming that the taxes that jesus was specifically referring to were probably being used to fund the occupying oppressive roman forces, which would be the state “doing anything they want with that money” and “spend(ing) it on things they shouldn’t”. or do you think the people jesus was talking to would have agreed this was a good use of their tax money?
but that is slightly off subject.
when jt says “our entire society built upon a grand edifice of theft” i was under the impression that he was implying that taxation of any form was an infringement of his personal property rights, and possibly even partial slavery (for example, work 10 hours, only receive 7 hours wages after tax, you’ve effectively been forced to work for 3 hours unpaid). have i misunderstood him?
out of curiousity, you say that the state has the right to tax you for (and only for) purposes which you agree with, jt says that “a living wage”, a “fair go”, maintaining dignity”, are not good enough reasons to help “others who have less”, do you agree?
but the part which i’m really interested in is “The supreme authority, our semi-divinised state, has both a duty and license to extract property by force from some and deliver it to others who have less. Everybody believes this. Except Christians who read their Bibles”.
care to elaborate? or are you a christian that hasn’t read their bible?
Assumptions Sammy boy, almost never right.
I think the tax question is very interesting precisely because the tax Jesus told His disciples to pay was no doubt used for purposes abhorrent to the jews and to Jesus, ie the subjugation and oppression of Isreal and supporting an emporer who had delusions of divinity.
This rather disagrees with the idea that Christians could theorectically with hold some of their taxes for moral reasons such as funding abortion or miitary actions they didnt regard as moral.
This is not the same as taking the position that certain state practices are wrong and lobbying to change them. Christians have a responsibilty to stand up and advocate right behaviour, for themselves for others and for the Government. Being a law abiding citizen does not mean abdicating our responsibility to promote truth and justice.
To some extent this is exactly the same principle as “love the sinner, not the sin”. We are obligated to pray for and uphold the government, but of course we want it to be better, to do a better job and to give up unjust practices, to embrace and promote fair and equitable practice both on the part of the govt and citizens.
It would also be nice if Govt remembered it existed as God’s agent for the benefit of the people, and chose moral paths rather than financially and polictically expedient ones. And that in God’s eyes leadership was a service role not a rulership role.
sam, JT is calling out the government for misusing tax monies, that does not mean that tax is intrinsically wrong. I don’t care to speak for his view on tax, just that the command to pay tax and the government responsibility to use it wisely are not incompatible.
I think the current tax rate is too high (thus the government is wrong). Moreover I think the tax income is being misused by the same government. But the command to tax rightly and spend rightly is given to the government and not me. Thus they will be judged for how well they do their job.
As for me, I am commanded to pay my tax. And so I do (even as I disagree with what is done with much of it). I am answerable for how I do my duties, not how others do theirs.
sam, as to your other question.
I assume that the issue in this article is not tax per se, but specific uses of that tax. So by theft I am assuming what is being condemned here is redistribution of wealth: tax money that is used for benefits, superannuation, income support, etc.
What is not (necessarily) referred to as “theft” is tax money used for the courts and police.
you guys are right, i’ve read more into this article than is actually there. where i went wrong is that the bible doesn’t comment on agreeing with them or even lobbying to change them, only that you should always pay them.
in the light of romans 13 and matthew 20, was the american revolution in violation of gods law to the extent that they were rebelling against the taxes? i understand there were other reasons as well.
jeremy: ‘It would also be nice if Govt remembered it existed as God’s agent’. i don’t agree or disagree, but would just like to point out that paul was talking the roman empire, so a government can clearly remain gods appointed agent independent of their choosing ‘moral paths’ or not. you could argue god appointed the romans to persecute christians, so the fact that governments are appointed by god seems completely unrelated to how they are expected to behave.
bethyada, i acknowledge you ‘don’t care to speak for his view on tax’, but he has claimed it is a view supported by the bible, and so held by christians who have read the bible. assuming you’ve read it, jt is saying you should be able to speak on his views because they are also your views.
you say ‘what is being condemned here is redistribution of wealth’, benefits and super etc. assuming you’re right, how did you (or just jt?) arrive at this view as a result of your study of scriptures?
also, dividing taxes between actual cash transfer payments and all other government spending is arbitrary, because there is still a definite transfer of benefits. for example, other people still benefit your tax dollars which are used for providing primary school education, so why isn’t it the same concept?
jeremy, would just like to point out my assumptions about caesars taxes were right. this doesn’t happen very often (first time ever? probably the last.), so want to draw attention to it.
Good insight, John.
As far as I can tell, the Bible promotes open borders, on condition that the immigrants abide by the law of the land (which, it goes without saying, is the law of God). Immigration in this scenario is a good thing, not least because the ‘natives’ have an ongoing incentive to walk in obedience to God. Why? Because if they don’t, they know that one of the curses God will bring upon them is that, ‘the stranger that is among you, shall climb above thee up on high, and thou shalt come down beneath alow’.