New Zealand is changing

The 2023 New Zealand Census data that I’ve been waiting for has finally been released, and to statistics and demographics nerds like me, it’s utterly fascinating. To avoid burying the lede, New Zealand is finally majority non-religious. I’ve written about that subject several times over the years, and have always said this was inevitable.

This is the way Statistics NZ reported the change:

For the first time since the New Zealand census began to collect religious affiliation, over half of the census usually resident population had no religion at the time of the 2023 Census. The proportion of people with ‘No religion’ steadily increased from 41.9 percent (1,635,348) in 2013, to 48.2 percent (2,264,601) in 2018, and 51.6 percent (2,576,049) in 2023.

That’s an increase of ten points over a decade, but it was a slow change. This is the point where I always point out that “no religion” means precisely that: While it includes the categories atheist and agnostic, it also includes those who have “nothing in particular”. The only thing we know for sure about these people—which, full disclosure, is the category I chose for myself—is that we aren’t part of any organised religion. The stats for religious identification are also changing:

The three largest religious groupings in 2023 were:

• Christian – 1,614,636 people (down 102,543) or 32.3 percent of the total population, compared with 36.5 percent in 2018
• Hindu – 144,753 people (up 21,369) or 2.9 percent compared with 2.6 percent in 2018
• Islam – 75,138 people (up 14,517) or 1.5 percent compared with 1.3 percent in 2018.

I think that the small increase in those choosing Hindu or Islam is probably because of immigration (though that might take deeper analysis to confirm), but it’s fascinating that less than a third of New Zealanders identify as Christian—this in a country once heavily dominated by those identifying as Christian.

New Zealand has actually been a secular nation for a very long time, even when religious identification was still a majority (in other words, 2018 and earlier). In my personal experience, most New Zealanders don’t like having religion shoved in their faces, so much so that door-to-door proselytisers, and pretty much any insistent religious person, is likely to be called a “god botherer” (though not to their faces…) by ordinary Kiwis—even including many of those who identify as Christian. Basically, Kiwis want to be left alone.

The 2023 Census was the first to ask people about their gender, sexual identity, and whether they were born with a variation of sex characteristics. The results showed that around 1 in 20 adults belonged to Rainbow or LGBTIQ+ communities. Wellington has the highest percentage (11.3 percent) of LGBTIQ+ residents, Dunedin was second (with 7.3 percent), then Christchurch (6.0 percent), Palmerston North (5.8 percent), and Hamilton (5.6 percent). Auckland, by far New Zealand’s largest city, had a lower percentage of people who belonged to the LGBTIQ+ population (4.9 percent) than Hamilton has, which surprised me. Within Auckland local board areas, Waitematā, which is mainly the central city, including some historically LGBTIQ+ suburbs (neighbourhoods), had the highest proportion of LGBTIQ+ adults, with 12 percent. [For more detailed information, see “2023 Census shows 1 in 20 adults belong to Aotearoa New Zealand’s LGBTIQ+ population”].

Here are a few random facts I thought were interesting:

• In 2023, 22.5 percent of the population was 60 years and over, and 18.7 percent were children under 15 years. These proportions were 20.8 and 19.6 percent respectivelyin 2018. Also, the average number of children born to each female aged 15 years and over was 1.6, down from 1.7 children in 2018 and 1.8 in 2013. Taken together, this shows why immigration will continue to be important for New Zealand if it is to cope with an aging population and declining numbers of New Zealand-born young people to support them.

• Almost 30 percent of usual residents were born overseas. The most common overseas birthplaces in 2023 were: England at 4.2 percent of the total population (208,428 people), People’s Republic of China at 2.9 percent (145,371 people), and India at 2.9 percent (142,920 people). 31,779 people in New Zealand were born in the United States. The number of people born in the Philippines increased from 37,299 people (0.9 percent) in 2013 to 99,264 (2.0 percent) in 2023. Not all of these foreign-born people are citizens or even necessarily permanent residents—they’re merely “usually resident”, and may be on work permits and visas. [For more detailed information, see “Census results reflect Aotearoa New Zealand’s diversity”, which also includes information on languages spoken and ethnicity].

• Around two-thirds of households in New Zealand (1,175,217 or 66.0 percent) now own their home, compared with 64.5 percent in 2018. Stats NZ principal analyst, Rosemary Goodyear, noted that, “This increase in home ownership, although small, is a reversal of the falling rates we have seen since home ownership peaked in the early 1990s.” However, home ownership is lowest in Auckland (59.5 percent), probably in part because it has some of the highest house prices in the country.

• About two-thirds of private dwellings (66.8 percent) had heat pumps in 2023, compared with just under half (47.3 percent) in 2018. That’s a huge increase, and that makes homes warmer and drier, but their energy efficiency makes the increase good new for the country. 

• Landline telephones are rapidly declining in use. In 2023, 31.0 percent of households had a landline, down from 62.5 percent in the 2018 Census. I don’t know if they have a way to track VOIP phones (what I have), which are internet-based but use traditional “landline” phone numbers.

Every time I look at newly-released census statistics, I always find things I think are interesting, and there was obviously far more in the press releases than I’ve shared here. Eventually I’ll look at the raw data to see if the answers to any of my questions are there, or can be extrapolated from the data that is there. But that’s a job for the future. Right now, though, it’s like Christmas for statistics and demographics nerds like me. Hooray!

More information on any of these census statistics can be found in the links above. Also, “Home ownership increases and housing quality improves” has data about housing, including the last three points on my random facts list.

Have nice things. Or not.

People have opinions about everything possible. Of course they do: It seems to be a large part of being a modern human. Even so, it’s amazing how people seem to feel the urgent need to spout their negative opinions about things that don’t matter, like pop music. I had two reminders of that this week.

I don’t take part in any of the numerous social media arguments over something in pop culture—movies, TV/streaming shows, music, etc. In general, my feelings about pop culture are summed up in Arthur’s Law:

Everything you love, someone else hates; everything you hate, someone else loves. So, relax and like what you like and forget about everyone else.

Not everyone feels that way—shocker, I know—and many of the Internet Fights I’ve seen are centred on, or related to, something in pop culture. I honestly cannot understand why people get so bothered about what other people enjoy. To me, it seems like such a colossal wast of time and energy.

I was reminded of this a few days ago when I saw a Facebook “Memory” about what I posted after the death of Prince in 2016. I later blogged about that, and the post incorporated much of what I said on Facebook. At the time, I was taken aback by the fact that some people couldn’t even leave people alone to grieve the loss of an artist they liked and admired. I said:

The Internet has provided a great way for people to share their grief with people who feel it, too, and that’s wonderful for them. Really, that should be good enough for the rest of us.

Of course, it wasn’t good enough for some people who chose to be truly awful to other people. It just felt wrong to me—not the first time that’s happened. That made me think about all the other times I’ve seen people that seemingly decided that the world simply HAD to know how much they hated a particular thing in pop culture, especially in pop music, which seems to draw the greatest level of attacks.

At the moment, there seems to be no one in pop culture who is a bigger target of hatred than Taylor Swift, but, to me, it’s utterly mystifying. My cards on the table before I go a step further: I like a lot of Taylor Swift’s songs—actually, that should probably be written be as “a LOT”. However, I wouldn’t call myself a “fan”, mainly because I’ve never bought any of her music (I’ve added her music to my Spotify library), However, her song “The Man” was one of my favourite songs of 2020, and the music video [WATCH — no, seriously, watch it!] is quite probably my favourite video of that year (and on my list of all-time favourites). It’s one of the things that got me through the first Covid lockdown. All of which is to make clear that I think she’s an enormous talent, even though I don’t call myself a “fan”—actually, am I a fan of anyone anymore? A topic for another time, maybe.

There’s a thing called toxic fandom, and they can be fans of literally anyone in the public eye. Personally, I’m not too keen on the aggressive and toxic fans of the frequently napping oddly-hued senior citizen politician from Florida, and the toxicity of such fans can be alarming. However, the number of such fans is astonishingly small considering how much attention they get in the media. Taylor Swift absolutely has aggressive and toxic fans, too, but they’re self-evidently NOT the majority.

I think part of the problem is the imperative of modern journalism to promote the sensational and even outrageous in order to get clicks on links (and, even still, eyes on broadcasts). It’s the old-timey journalist’s slogan, “if it bleeds, it leads”, or even “dog bites man isn’t news, man bites dog is.” The news media, then, has a financial incentive to give airtime and print space (online especially) to the most extreme examples of toxic fans being toxic, and while such fans are absolutely not the majority of a given fandom, and even though it can be argued they cast a shadow out of more normal fans, that doesn’t make those more normal-behaving fans insignificant.

I mention all that because part of the hatred directed at Taylor Swift is “justified” but some people as their supposed reaction to the antics of some of Taylor’s aggressive and toxic fans. The question is, those particular fans’ behaviour aside, why do so many people seem to hate Taylor so very much? Far too much of the answer comes down to politics and culture wars.

Not long ago, the news was filled with fans of NFL (American football) reacting bitterly to Taylor’s relationship with Travis Kelce, a tightend for the Kansas City Chiefs. Fox “News” picked up the chorus, condemning her for having the utter audacity to go to watch Kelce play, and declaring there was a fix in for the Chiefs to win the Super Bowl so that she could endorse Joe Biden for president amid all the media coverage. The Chiefs won, and, of course, Taylor didn’t say a word about President Biden.

Fox and other rightwing media outlets then switched their attention to Swift’s hugely, insanely successful Eras Tour. Fox performers claimed Swift would use the platform to urge her fans to support Democrats, something that apparently came from her previous non-partisan urging of her fans to register to vote (and they did). Fox performers demanded that Taylor “stay out of politics”, which, oddly enough, is a demand they’ve never made of any rightwing performer since, well, ever. Amazing, isn't it!

With the rightwing media ecosystem promoting hatred of Taylor Swift, it was inevitable it would metastasise. Now, it’s become part of the USA’s far-right religious-political activism.

Today I saw a cut-and-paste share of a Facebook post by a far-right “Christian singer, songwriter, former worship leader,” and failed Republican candidate for Congress (because I’ve never heard of him, it seems prudent to not name him, so as to not give him a Google boost). He wrote on his Facebook post, “Almost half the songs on Taylor Swift’s new album contain explicit lyrics (E), make fun of Christians and straight up blaspheme God. Is this the music you want your kids listening to? Do you think I’m overreacting?” Well, since he asked, yes, I absolutely do.

He shared small portions—in one case a single line—of lyrics to songs from Taylor’s latest album, The Tortured Poets Department, and I found nothing in those quoted lyrics to be even remotely offensive, so I decided to listen to the songs in their entirety to find out for myself what he was clutching his pearls about.

The fact is, I liked all three songs, and the two the guy seemed to be the most apoplectic about (because he shared more than a single line from them)? I liked those two the best of the three. This doesn’t surprise me in the least. The rightwing is constantly bleating on and on and on about how “the Left”—by which they actually mean anyone who’s not a rightwinger—is “woke” and they’re all “snowflakes” who can’t accept offence and should “just to grow up”, and because this is the rightwing mantra, I have a question: What should mainstream people say about rightwingers when they entirely overreact to a song’s lyric and claim to be mortally offended by “attacks” on supposed Christians and their version of the Christian god? Are they “woke”? Well, yes, and insofar as that has any meaning, it’s their version of it—though they’d probably prefer their version of the term, “red-pilled”. What’s clear is that, by their own definition, they’re being “snowflakes”—people who can’t accept offence.

It’s easy for people to be cynical about their ideological opposites, presuming they’re arrogant, aggressive, that they lack intelligence or, at the very least, self-awareness, and that their defining trait is hypocrisy. It’s also easy to point out things that seem to justify the prejudice, like the pearl-clutcher who attacked Taylor who then used the comments on his post to market t-shirts he sells on his website. Obviously, neother hypocrisy nor grifting is defined of limited by ideology, even though it seems like the Right has more than their fair share of it.

Decades from now, Taylor Swift and all the nonsense thrown at her by the rightwing in particular will be items in history books, but is this really the way her loudest critics want to be remembered, as intolerant pearl-clutching snowflakes? I ask for a very simple reason: The rightwing constantly demands that mainstream people should “just get over it” whenever rightwingers say or do something the mainstream finds offensive or over-the-top. Shouldn’t righwingers do the same?

Everything you love, someone else hates; everything you hate, someone else loves. So, relax and like what you like and forget about everyone else. No, really!

The graphic up top is something I've seen on social media for several years. Sometimes the graphic has been altered to make a different statement, but the text in this version is the first I saw. I couldn't find who originally created the graphic or where it's from (or even if this version has the original text), however, the first online use I could find was from 2016.

Communication from beyond?

Humans have created many different beliefs about what happens after death ever since they evolved into human beings—or maybe even earlier, for all we know. The question, “is there anything after death?” has been at the heart of all of the thousands of religions humans have created over thousands of millennia, and it’s probably one of the main reasons religions still exist. There’s no way to know for sure if there’s anything after humans die, and, if something does, what that might be. However, that doesn’t stop people believing they can communicate with the dead or vice versa. Whether one has a religion or not, the possibility that communication might be possible is enticing, if nothing else.

Last month, Pew Research Center released the results of a survey, reporting that “Many Americans report interacting with dead relatives in dreams or other ways” (see their chart up top). Pew noted:

While the survey asked whether people have had interactions with dead relatives, it did not ask for explanations. We don’t know whether people view these experiences as mysterious or supernatural, or whether they see them as having natural or scientific causes, or some of both.

Those are important caveats, because, for example, there are people who have no religion, but who are nevertheless sure they’ve had such interactions, and there are religious pe0ple who say they have not. The details of that are interesting:

Roughly two-thirds of Catholics (66%) and members of the historically Black Protestant tradition (67%) have ever experienced a visit from a deceased family member in some form. Evangelical Protestants are far less likely to say the same (42%).

Roughly half (48%) of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – atheists, agnostics, and those who report their religion is “nothing in particular” – say they have ever been visited by a dead relative in a dream or other form. However, those who describe their religion as nothing in particular are much more likely to say they have ever been visited by a deceased loved one (58%) than are agnostics (34%) and atheists (26%).

We would expect atheists and agnostics to have a lower likelihood of saying they’ve ever had interactions with dead loved ones, but considering how much emphasis Christianity places on death and their version of an afterlife, it frankly surprised me that “evangelical protestants” weren’t all that much more likely to say they’d had such interactions than agnostics were.

Be that as it may, it’s also clear that for all segments of society, dreams were most likely to be the way the interaction happened. I think that’s thoroughly unsurprising: Everyone dreams (apparently), and many people would have dreams with dead loved ones in them—I have, too. The question is really whether they believe the dream was some sort of visitation by the loved one or not, because that, it seems to me, is what would—or, maybe I should say could—make it an interaction rather than merely a dream. My own dreams haven’t answered that question for me.

The first dream I wrote about here was ”The dream about my ‘only you’”, three years ago this month. While that dream felt relevant to what I was feeling at the time, it didn’t seem even remotely like some sort of visitation or whatever because, while it was related to Nigel, it wasn’t actually about him—and possibly didn’t even have him in it.

The next dream I remembered (and remembered to write down at the time, which isn’t necessarily the same thing) came in January 2022. That dream was, as I said at the time, “A different and unusual, usual sort of dream”. That particular dream had elements that were kinda, sorta visitation-like, but was it one? I didn’t think so.

In June of this year, I had another dream with Nigel in it, one that, like my dream in September 2020, the dream was about what I was feeling at that time, though this one was also a bit like the January 2022 dream in that it had kinda, sorta visitation-like elements to it.

In the final post of my Ask Arthur 2020 series, I answered a question about dreams that Roger Green asked. In that post, I talked about dreams (or snippets), two of which involved Nigel. I didn’t talk about them anywhere else, and neither of them seemed particularly kinda, sorta visitation-like.

And then, there’s that other time…

In July 2022, I published a post, “An unusual thing happened”. in which I talked about the closest I’ve ever come to a possible visitation:

It was about an hour or so before my target time to get up, I was lightly asleep, deep enough to not be aware of my surroundings or to have conscious awareness of dreams, and also not awake enough to have any sort of self-directed dream. In fact, at the time, it didn’t seem like I was dreaming at all.

So, I was in that thick fog that lies on either side of the border between sleep and wakefulness, and I heard Nigel’s voice saying clearly and distinctly, “Are you there?” There were no visuals of any kind, just the sound, and it startled me awake. I felt kind of frightened, to be honest, for no rational reason, except, maybe, that it sounded so real, and that’s physically impossible.

Part of what made that so confronting is that, as I also said in that post, “When I dream, the people in them don’t sound much like they do/did in real life—they sound kind of muffled, mumbling, often kind of vague…” That’s what made the “unusual thing” so very different from any of my dreams with Nigel in them.

When I wrote about the dream, it reminded me that I’d had another experience I couldn’t explain, one that felt very much like a visitation from my mother because “it definitely felt real, both physically and in that sort of ethereal way we feel when we’re physically close to someone with whom we have a strong connection,” something I felt a weaker version that I felt was Nigel’s presence.

I’ve said main times, and in many ways, that my scepticism around the idea of some sort of existence after death, and also the possibility of communication with/from the dead. Is NOT the same as rejection of the possibility that one or both are real. I simply need evidence, something I also talked about in the “An unusual thing happened” post.

Having said all of that, and with all of my qualifications and explanations, if I’d been surveyed by Pew Research, the only honest I answer could have given was that, yes, I was visited in a dream. Whether that actually happened or not is the question I cannot answer. However, for me, the possibility it could’ve been communication from Nigel was comforting, and even if that comfort was all there was to it, it was enough for me. Maybe that’s true for the people surveyed, too?

Still, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” So… maybe?

The unsupremes ruin everything

Friday evening is normally a relaxing time for me. Sometimes I get together with family for dinner, which is always nice, and then I settle in to watch some TV for the rest of the evening. But this past Friday, as I was beginning to wind down for bed, I got an alert on my iPad that the US “Supreme” Court had struck yet again dismantled more of the human rights of LGBT+ Americans. The ruling—yet another far-right ideologically-driven decision—is part of the Republican far-right majority’s agenda: Make America 1883 Again.

Like most people on the centre and left of US politics, I have zero respect for the far-right Republican majority of the court, precisely because they’ve worked so very hard to destroy the court’s reputation: Instead of standing up for justice and fairness and for ordinary people, and instead of ruling in accordance with the law and the US Constitution, the far-right Republicans are instead engaged in “comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted,” as journalist Ian Millhiser put in the subtitle of his 2015 book Injustices

The Court’s latest ideologically-driven decision, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (21-476) [PDF of the decision], involved a fundamentalist “christian” web designer who thought one day she might like to create wedding websites, but her religious views compelled her to refuse to create a website for a same-gender couple, in the event she ever started providing such services, of course, and if a theoretical same-gender couple ever tried to hire her services. While the supposed “injury” to her was entirely hypothetical, she sued the State of Colorado, anyway—well, the ultra-far-right “Alliance Defending [sic] Freedom [lol]" sued on her behalf.

The extremist group has long shopped around for “victims” they can represent in their constant efforts to overturn all legal protections for LGBT+ people—and everyone else they don’t like. They have several suits at various stages of litigation at any given time, and it’s entirely likely that when the Court’s the far-right Republican majority inevitably strikes down Obgergefell v. Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut—and possibly even Loving v. Virginia—the A”D”F will be behind it one way or another.

What’s extraordinary about this decision, and two others just released, is that there was no one who had suffered actual legal “injury” that needed to be remedied. Instead, the Court decided to “afflict the afflicted” in order to “comfort the comfortable” by imposing their own ideological agenda onto everyone else. That could not possibly be more obvious than in this particular case.

When the plaintiff’s firm filed the lawsuit against Colorado, there was no possibility of harm because she wasn’t doing the sort of work she didn’t want to have to do for people she objected to. It’s clear that Colorado didn’t think she had legal standing to sue the state, and part way through the process it emerged that, allegedly, someone named “Stewart” had contacted her through her website’s contact form to try to hire her web services for his marriage to his “husband”. The problem was, the whole thing was faked by someone: He had been married to a woman for 15 years, and even if he was gay, he was actually a designer himself, so he wouldn’t need her services. He also had no idea his name and details had been used in a Supreme Court case.

The plaintiff's legal team claimed, “it’s undisputed that the request was received,” however, it appears that no proof of that has been made public. Still, assuming it really did happen—and, to be clear, it may have happened—it proves nothing whatsoever. The lawyer suggested it could have been a troll, which is possible, but that raises questions, like, who did it and what was their motivation? Mischief or malice? Was it done to strengthen the web designer’s case? We’ll never know because at no point did anyone ever check to see if it was a legitimate request, which is… odd. A legitimate request may have actually bolstered her case if she refused, but not even checking to find out if the request was legitimate just sounds… odd.

The lawyers claimed it wasn’t actually part of the case, anyway, which is technically true (at least, from their perspective), but the fact remains that the one thing that could have suggested real potential “injury” to the plaintiff was never vetted. Even so, the lawyers were happy to continue using the apparently faked contact, arguing after the ruling that “any claim that [the web designer] will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because [the designer] has received such a request.” Did she, though? And if so, how do we know it wasn’t from a supporter trying to shore up her legally non-existent argument? This just sounds like spin. Obviously, either side in a political dispute like this may try to spin the results to their benefit, but that doesn’t make claims of relevancy valid. [See also: "Legitimacy of ‘customer’ in Supreme Court gay rights case raises ethical and legal flags" by Alanna Durkin Richer and Colleen Slevin, Associated Press]

This same thing—litigants who haven’t experienced any actual legal “injury” runs through two other recent decisions. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (20-1199) [PDF of the decision], which overturned affirmative action in university admissions, the driver was a long-time agitator against affirmative action, not a student. Similarly, in Biden v. Nebraska et al (22-506) [PDF of the decision], the decision that stopped President Biden from forgiving some student loan debt, the supposedly injured parties—six Republican-controlled states—were not actually injured (except for their feelings, perhaps). One state agency that handles student loans didn’t want to be part of the lawsuit (not the least because they stood to make more money if the debt relief plan had been permitted), but was forced into it, anyway, by Republican state officials who used their power to act on behalf of the plaintiff because it was a state agency. In all three of these cases, dubious—at best—speculative claims were accepted by the Court’s Republican far-right majority as legitimate and as good reasons to further erode the rights and freedom of ordinary people in order to, yet again, comfort the comfortable—and to advance a far-right Republican agenda.

For the web designer’s case, the whole rightwing argument was, as it has been in similar cases, about supposed “speech”: They argue that forcing a fundamentalist “christian” to “participate” in a same-gender wedding requires the creative professional to make “symbolic speech” in support of something they oppose on religious grounds. As someone who has worked in creative industries for decades, I think this argument is profoundly stupid: They’re hired to do a job, end of story.

The real issue here is that the rightwing wants their particular religious beliefs to always cancel out the human and civil rights of people they don’t “agree with”, which, of course, is code for, shall we say, “people they dislike very much”. I think that’s stupid, too, because it only ever works in one direction: If a graphic designer, photographer, cake baker, florist, or other creative professional refused to provide services to an opposite-gender fundamentalist “christian” couple because it would mean providing “symbolic speech” endorsing the couple’s religious views that ran counter to the creative professional’s, I feel certain that the current Supreme Court would never permit that objection. Turnabout is not fair play—it’d be prohibited.

The court’s far-right Republican majority is doing the one thing that Republicans have long pretended was an unpardonable sin: They’re legislating from the bench [See: “The Supreme Court’s conservatives are doing exactly what they claim to detest” by MSNBC Columnist Michael A. Cohen]. They’re doing this legislating from the bench in order to force a hard-core ideologically-driven agenda onto everyone. In so doing, the court’s far-right Republican majority is reversing decades of slow, often tortured and halting, progress toward more fairness, equity, and safety for ordinary people, and are instead working hard to raise elites above ordinary Americans—and ordinary people are very ones who  need the protection of the Constitution.

So, yet again, the Supreme Court’s Republican far-right majority has dismantled a bit more of the civil and human rights of LGBTQ+ people. This is far from the last time they’ll do that, and each attack will be just as ideologically driven. This is why defeating all Republicans everywhere is, for now, the only hope for saving democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s Republican far-right majority has yet again reminded us: Elections have consequences.

Ask Arthur 2021, Part 3: Biblical endings and me

The days in the year are winding down, so I better rattle my dags and get this series done. Fortunately (for me) several questions are related, so that helps things. However, today’s aren’t in any way related: One is somewhat controversial, and the other absolutely isn’t.

The first question is from my longtime friend Sherry, who I’ve known for far too many years to politely mention. She asked:

Based on your religious upbringing… do you believe we are in the "end times." That it will get worse. That Jesus will return and we will all live a perfect life? What do you believe?

This is actually something I don’t think I’ve ever talked about on this blog—no particular reason, I just haven’t. However, whenever the subject’s come up (and, to be fair, it rarely has), I’ve been pretty consistent: I don’t believe in the “end times” and never have.

The first time I can remember being certain that “end times” was nonsense was when I was a teenager, 20 at most. My mother and I were talking about life and the issues of the day, as we often did, and she said how there were “wars and rumours of wars” and how that was an indicator of the approaching “end times”. I matter of factly said to her, “but when has there ever NOT been “wars and rumours of wars” in all of human history?” It was at that moment that I knew for sure that I thought the whole notion of “end times” was nonsense.

When I was in university, I took a class in comparative religions, and had a lot of really interesting discussions with my dad (who, new readers may not know, had been a Lutheran minister for most of my life to that point). As part of that course, and wider reading I did then and in the years and decades that followed, I never saw anything to convince me that the whole “end times” thing was real or legitimate. Instead, I came to believe it was merely churches’ way of trying to control people by scaring the hell (so to speak) out of them. That conviction has only strengthened over the years.

I have huge philosophical and theological problems with the very idea, and not just because most of the Book of Revelation reads like a memoir of a psychedelic acid trip. I also find its underlying philosophy to be anti-Christian: Christianity was based on Jesus’ words, not the apocalyptic ravings of some anonymous (possible) druggie. Lutheranism—my own background—and much of Christianity was based on “justification by faith alone”, which is actually summed up very well: in Wikipedia:

In Christian theology, justification is God's righteous act of removing the condemnation, guilt, and penalty of sin, by grace, while, at the same time, declaring the unrighteous to be righteous, through faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice.

In my view, Revelation and its “end times” is wholly and completely inconsistent with core Christian teaching (not the least because the Gospels don’t talk about the “end times” acid trip). Fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christians stress “end times” because it meshes well with their stress on authority of the church and its right to control every aspect of people’s lives. That level of authoritarian control is antithetical to Mainline Protestants (like Lutherans) and even modern Catholics in Europe and North America.

Because of all that, then, I believe that humans are capable of destroying the earth OR creating a paradise for all, and no supernatural intervention or acid trip journals are required for either to happen. It’s absolutely possible that things will get very much worse, or, things could get better—there’s no way to know which it will be. There are plenty of reasons to be hopeful, and other reasons to be worried, but I absolutely don’t think that Iron Age mysticism is a reliable way to determine what will happen.

As for the reason many people want to believe in “end times”, that, “Jesus will return and we will all live a perfect life,” that’s a matter of philosophy or religious faith. I personally don’t have any religion, so, in a sense, it’s not my fight. If the question was, “could Jesus return?” Sure—I’ve never seen any proof that it would be impossible. If that happened, could that also mean that “we will all live a perfect life?” Sure—anything’s theoretically possible. I’m just not convinced either will happen.

My own belief, since you asked, is that none of that “end times” stuff will happen. The Gospels, flawed though they are, provide a far better roadmap to what’s likely to happen if Christianity is true than the Iron Age acid trip journal ever could.

Thanks to Sherry for the question! It reminds me that I really should talk about religious philosophy more often.

Next, I have a completely unrelated question from Roger Green, one I’m including to kind of lighten things up a bit. He asked:

Are there any famous people with the surname Schenck? How about famous (or hemisemidemifamous) people named Arthur Schenck? My Google notifications are forever telling me about golfers, musicians, pastors, police chiefs named Roger Green..

I realise that you mean anyone other than me, and it kind of depends on how “famous” you mean. There were—past tense—a couple of famous people, and a couple other Schenck surnames I’ve run across over the years, but that’s about it.

The first non-related Schenck I ever heard of was Joseph M. Schenck, who was a Russian-born US film executive, beginning in the early days. He partnered with Darryl F. Zanuck to create Twentieth Century Pictures, which in 1935 merged with Fox Film Corporation to form 20th Century Fox, which he was chairman of until 1957. The reason I heard of him is because I remember by dad telling me about how his classmates teased him by posting newspaper clippings of Joseph’s conviction for income tax evasion (for which he later received a presidential pardon). Reading the Wikipedia article linked to above, I can’t help wondering if he was actually gay.

The second Schenck I ever heard of was Charles T. Schenck, but that was only because I was studying political science and came across Schenck v. United States, a landmark 1919 Supreme Court case that upheld Charles’ conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 for handing out flyers urging people to resist the military draft. That was the ruling in which Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic,” and used the phrase “clear and present danger” as a reason to suppress free speech.

The next one was Rocky Schenck, who directed the Visiting Kids video for “Trilobites”. I included that video in a 2017 blog post.

Finally, in checking to make sure I hadn’t missed any, I ran across a German-born French painter, August Friedrich Schenck, who I’d never heard of and know nothing about, other than what I read. On the other hand, that same quick check showed me there are apparently a lot of lawyers with the Schenck surname.

As for famous "Arthur Schencks", I must report that none of us appear to be particularly "famous"—I mean, other than me, obviously. I'm a bloody legend, as we all know.

Thanks for the question, Roger!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-21”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

Yes, ask again – The first post in this year’s series.
Ask Arthur 2021, Part 1: To blog, or not to blog
Ask Arthur 2021, Part 2: Grief, coping, and living

Forgiveness is a gift

I posted the above to the AmeriNZ Facebook Page yesterday. The questions raised by the linked article are simple: Can we forgive those who have caused us grievous harm? Also, should we?

The story is about a man who promoted the myth that gay people can be “cured” though so-called “conversion therapy”, which is also known by the colourful phrase, “pray the gay away” and the more pointed, “ex-gay torture”. His work harmed countless vulnerable LGBT+ people over the 20 years he promoted that nonsense. Can they forgive him? Should they?

By promoting the ex-gay myth, he also harmed the friends and families of LGBT+ people, not merely through giving them “false hope”, but especially by putting them through it all for nothing. Moreover, it also gave people without LGBT+ friends or family members reason to hold onto their anti-gay animus: They could continue to believe that “change” was possible, that gay people who lived their lives with honesty, integrity, and authenticity were being wilfully sinful and disobedient, instead of the reality, namely, that they were being themselves. Can they forgive him? Should they?

People like this guy harmed specific LGBT+ people and their family and friends, and he hurt us all by providing a sort of moral cover for his kindred religionists to cause us great harm. That can’t possibly be undone merely because he’s repudiated his past and come out as gay.

The now openly gay former “ex-gay” torturer was part of a whole system that leads to hatred and violence against LGBT+ people. He cannot escape his role in that. So: Can we forgive him? Should we?

I think that the answer is entirely personal: We each must decide for themselves. But we also have to realise that there are no easy answers, that each instance is unique and requires thought and reflection.

Personally, I think the “ex-gay” torture guy could merit forgiveness if he sincerely and appropriately atones for his wrongdoing—and merely turning away from it or saying it was wrong isn’t enough. Similarly, the fact he’s now out doesn’t absolve him of his duty to atone. Because he did such enormous damage to individuals and to an entire community, he has a moral obligation to try and make up for that. Then we might be able to talk about forgiveness.

People often say, “forgive and forget”, as if they’re the same thing, or at least connected. They’re neither. We can forget about grievous wrong done to us without ever forgiving the person who did it. Basically, we move on with our lives. Or, maybe based on our personal belief structure we forgive such a person, despite the fact we can’t forget what they did. Others can’t do either.

It is a rare person, I think, who can do both. Forgiveness really is a gift of sorts, as I said in the Facebook post. It’s something that many of us can never quite achieve when it comes to the big wrongs done to us individually or as part of a larger community. I think that’s okay.

I stand by what I said the other day, that when people do or say bad or stupid things, they need a path to redemption. I’ve laid out one path the “ex-gay” torture guy could take, but, obviously, that path won’t please everyone. Ultimately, he needs to choose his own path to redemption, and leave us to decide for ourselves whether he’s earned forgiveness. Or not.

Forgiveness is a gift. The people who have caused us harm are the best ones to give us that gift. The choice on forgiveness, ultimately, is theirs well before it’s ours.

Political Notebook – 2019 Pride Edition

Four years ago today (US time), the US Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land in throughout the USA. Since then, the Radical Right has been working hard to reverse that and all other gains made by LGBT+ people over the past 50 years. Every single day we something in the news about (mostly) political attacks on LGBT+ people. The current regime controlling the White House has been waging a war against trans* people, and theocratic extremists in the Republican Party are working hard to turn the clock back on the human and civil rights of LGBT+ people. These are not all good days.

So today, as an important anniversary, is the perfect time to summarise just a small sample of all the bad currently going on in the USA—and some good things, too.

The enemies in government

The longterm plan of the Radical Right in the USA is to abolish marriage equality and to end protections of the civil and human rights of LGBT+ people. They have some “creative” solutions: “Alabama lawmakers pass bill to end marriage licenses” so that they don’t have to issue any to same-gender couples. That’ll show ‘em who’s boss! The main way Republicans are working to end LGBT+ equality is appointing extremist radicals to federal courts. This takes time, but it’s easy enough to do with Republicans constrolling the US Senate: “Senate confirms Trump nominee with anti-LGBTQ rights
record for lifetime federal judgeship”. This is their way to undo marriage equality and other advances for LGBT+ people because that happened afater positive rulings from federal courts. Meanwhile, there’s a detective with a sherrif’s office in Tennessee “called for the execution of LGBT+ people”. He didn’t have any reason other than his peculiar religious beliefs, and “on no more grounds than a cell phone photo of a person participating in a Pride event.” That went too far even for Cracker Barrel, something that may have surprised some LGBT+ activists.

Political and religious extremists are enemies, too

The current regime is controlled in many areas by extremist, far-right “Christians”, and that affects much of their domestic policy [see: “‘Brought to Jesus’: the evangelical grip on the Trump administration”). One of the strongest radical, extremist “Christian” supporters of the current occupant of the White House defended the regime of his Temporal Lord when they banned the Gay Pride Flag flying at US embassies. The charming guy declared it was “offensive to Christians and millions of people of other faiths”, which is pretty hilarious, really: The only time that those radical extremists ever care about“people of other faiths”is when they try to use them as props in their propaganda. That’s not just silly, it’s also yawn-inducingly boring, since religious crackpots attack the Gay Pride Flag all the time; in fact, I blogged about it way back in 2010. Still, it’s not all smooth walking across the water for them: “Mike Pence: Why his role as Trump's evangelical ambassador is facing new pushback”. Good news, indeed.

A bunch of fake “pastors” took part in a “death to gays” stunt in Orlando, Florida, chosen and timed deliberately to mock the anniversary of the Pulse massacre. Outside the event, one of the evil hoards declared, “Pray that if they do any protests, that it gets violent. They have Stand Your Ground in Florida. So we’re allowed to fight back.” A loving Christian, huh? A Missouri man threatened to "kill every gay person I can" at St. Louis’ PrideFest.

The Roman Catholic leadership cut ties with a school that refused to fire a married gay teacher, which is pretty awesome. But another school in the same archdiocese followed its orders and fired a gay teacher.

Community without unity?

The LGBT+ communities aren’t a monolith and more than Christians are. There are good Christians who stand up to the bigoted hate mongers on the Right, which means there are two sides even among Christians. So, it should be no surprise that there are divisions among the LGBT+ communities, too. “In Praise of Identity Politics and the Long History of Desire” looks at a different focus for Pride. “A match made in heaven” talks about the struggle between the two factions. The “corporatisation” of Pride events has long been a flash point in the LGBT+ communities. “These rainbow flag-waving corporations donated millions to anti-gay members of Congress”, which is a common enough criticism, though—in my opinion—unfair: Plenty of corporations give to both parties.

Despite it all, there is good news

Appropriate for today’s anniversary, Gallup reported that ” U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Stable, at 63%” . Sure, it should be higher by now, but a minority will still oppose it decades from now—after all, some still oppose interracial marriage. Meanwhile, as smaller majority, 53%, told Gallup that new anti-discrimination laws are needed to protect LGBT+ people. Gallup also found that “In U.S., 71% Support Transgender People Serving in Military”, which is stark contrast to the actions of the current regime controlling the White House. On gthe other hand, they also reported that "Americans Still Greatly Overestimate U.S. Gay Population".

Gallup also reported on the change over time: “Gallup First Polled on Gay Issues in '77. What Has Changed?”. Overall, things are much better now—but there are dangers looming. Finally, for a geeky take on it all, their Methodology Blog Blog answered the question, "How Do You Measure the LGBT Population in the U.S.?"

A couple last related pieces

There were a couple more things worth checking out, starting with "Stonewall at 50: stories from a gay rights revolution". An article that was unusual and targeted also answered a question more people ought to consider: "Here’s what a good LGBTQ ally looks like".

• • •

This is only a small sampling of the sort of stuff about LGBT+ people and our rights that I see all the time. On this special anniversary, and as we get closer to the 50th Anniversary of Stonewall, it’s worth the Notebook and putting in a page just about these issues.

When the war is over

Sometime in the future, perhaps decades from now, the United States’ war with Iran will have ended. Tens of millions will be dead. The world economy will have been destroyed and hundreds of millions of people throughout the developed world will be plunged into abject poverty, the sort that once was seen only in countries they called “the Third World”. Millions of refugees from the war and economic collapse will be moving across borders seeking refuge, food, and water. Most will find none of that. Parts of the planet may even have been rendered permanently uninhabitable. And all of this will be because of the stupidity of one man exploited by the religious lust of other powerful men.

Naturally, that’s not how this story needs to play out, but it’s clearly the direction the USA is moving.

It’s clear that the current occupant of the White House is utterly clueless about how foreign policy actually works. To him, it’s all an ego-driven game in which he must “win” and others must “lose”. It’s what his whole life, personal and professional, has been built on, something his parents clearly taught him.

So, the current occupant of the White House will bumble into war with Iran merely because doing so will flatter his planet-sized ego. He doesn’t care who dies, or how many, as long as he gets to feel like he “won”.

The far-right extremist “Christian” nationalists in his regime are playing on his vanity—and stupidity—to get him to do their bidding. This is precisely why they all overlook his adultery, cheating, lying, and other “sins”: Doing so gets them what they want, namely, the end of the world.

When I talked about their utterly insane “vessel theory” back in March, I talked mostly about domestic policy, but also foreign policy, noting:

“…the radical “Christian” extremists think that the current occupant will “save” the Jews (Israel) from Persia (Iran) by solving a problem the current occupant himself created in the first place. Their Lord (temporal and spiritual alike) moves in mysterious ways, indeed.”

Israel matters a LOT to these radical extremists because they see it as key to bringing about the end of the world. What they hope to do is trigger their mythological battle of Armageddon, which is supposed to be the final war between “good” and “evil”, and when it’s over, Republican Jesus will rule over the world. Details on all that do vary a bit.

The place is located in modern day Israel, which is part of their fanatical devotion to the country, and also because they believe that if they can provoke a massive attack on Israel, it will lead to their fantasy of a “final war”. So, those radical “Christians” live to see others die—and they intend to bring it about, and as many deaths as possible, as quickly as possible.

Another layer to this is that a shrine claimed to be the tomb of Esther is in Hamadān, Iran. This no doubt helps fuel their obsession with Iran.

So, we have a stupid and vain man who can be manipulated into starting a war with Iran by Dominionists hell-bent, so to speak, on destroying the world by causing a war against Iran. Behind the scenes, the PR puffery, the lies, and even his Twitter tantrums are all happening because he’s being played like a cheap violin by those radical “Christians”, and, of course, he doesn’t even know it.

It seems inevitable now that the current regime will either attack Iran or manipulate them into attacking someone in “the West” so that the regime can use it as a pretext for all out war. The radical “Christians” have been spending their lives waiting for that and working toward it.

Even if the current occupant of the White House was capable of understanding how he’s being played, he couldn’t do anything about it: He needs the support of far-right “evangelicals” in order to have any hope of winning the 2020 election. If he turns on them, or if he deliberately turns away from the war those extremists so desperately want, they could well abandon him. That much he does understand, as shown by his constant pandering to them. His ego cannot allow him to create the possibility of electoral defeat, so he will do whatever the radical “Christians” want him to do. His ego must be served.

This can all be avoided if good people do something. Right now, they need to contact their members of Congress to make it clear and unambiguous that they oppose any war with Iran. Most members of Congress are cowards, particularly when an election is looming, and they will even oppose the current regime IF the pressure to oppose its war against Iran is strong enough.

That could delay their war long enough to have the chance to throw them all out in the 2020 elections, but doing so will take an utterly massive voter turnout, bigger than anything the USA has ever seen, if there’s any hope of getting rid of this gang and their religiously inspired war lust. Anything less than a massive turnout, and the regime could win the election, or they could simply refuse to leave and overthrow the republic—AND start their war.

Sometime in the future, perhaps decades from now, people in the United States will look back in anger at one stupid man’s ability to bumble into war with Iran, enabled and manipulated by those with fanatical lust for religious supremacy. Will that be before all the other dire consequences, or after?

The choice is ours.

One pipe dream fantasy remains

That didn’t take long: Within a couple weeks of first being suggested, one idea for a possible Rightwing “Christian” party is officially dead, and unlikely to be resurrected. This is a good development for all sorts of reasons, especially because New Zealand doesn’t need a bunch of self-righteous extremists trying to divide us into “good” and “bad” as they try to advance an agenda of religiously-based control of our lives by government. One pipe dream fantasy gone, one to go.

When National Party List MP Alfred Ngaro announced yesterday that his Rightwing “Christian” party wasn’t going to happen after all, and that he’d stay in the National Party, he claimed it was “always something I was considering and nothing more than that". Well, obviously: If he’d really put in the hard work, there’s be a party in the process of formation.

The reaction of those on the Right in New Zealand have been fascinating—and silly. Current National Party Leader Simon Bridges said when he discussed Ngaro’s exploration, that forming a Rightwing “Christian” party was an "alluring idea". How so? Well, Simon, among others thinks there’s a “gap in the marketplace”. What they really mean is that at the moment there’s a gap in coalition partners for the National Party, which has no other parties on the Right to form a government with. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they really think a Rightwing “Christian” party has a place or meets an actual need or not: National just needs some friends.

Hard-right radio blowhard Mike Hosking (who, in my sincerely held opinion based on years of his “commentary” and other media performances, is a strident supporter of the National Party) said some incredibly daft things in his latest NZ Herald “column” [to read it, copy and paste this link: https://bit.ly/2YYoNrh], such as this:

“The one option that hasn't been tested for years (and you could argue never really got a proper chance to shine) is a Christian party. The idea is as tantalising and full of potential as it ever has been. It just needs the right ingredients. And one of those ingredients is a leader and, under this system, potentially, a leg up.”

This was not the first time I read something he wrote and then rolled my eyes so far I could see the inside of my head. What, precisely, is so “tantalising” about an extremist religious party? Presumably hard-right folks like Mike would have a problem with an extremist Muslim religious party, so why is a Christian one “tantalising”? Apparently it’s just because it would give National a coalition partner: “A successful Christian party would have been good news for National, given they're desperate for help.” That doesn’t make a Rightwing “Christian” party either “tantalising” or “full of potential”, just convenient.

A Rightwing “Christian” party is no more “tantalising” or “full of potential” now than it was when the idea was first tried 23 years ago. I fact, it is less relevant now than ever, as I explained in detail last Sunday.

This leaves only the possible new party formed (maybe) by the same church whose party failed spectacularly in 2005. While it’s extremely unlikely they could do any better than they did in 2005, their one chance is if they can find someone that New Zealanders don’t dislike as much as the leaders of the supposed new Rightwing “Christian” party to win an Electorate somewhere. Hitching their wagon to one possible candidate in one Māori electorate doesn’t sound particularly promising for them, as I also discussed on Sunday. But even if they were successful in that single Electorate, it’s highly improbable that the very unpopular leaders of that party could possibly attract enough votes to bring in any extra Members of Parliament.

The time for a Rightwing “Christian” party is long gone—in fact, as I discussed on Sunday, it never existed in the first place. Conservative Christians—as opposed to hard-right religious extremists who want to form some sort of Rightwing “Christian” party—still have the same home they’ve always had, the NZ National Party. Even Ngaro knows that: “I will continue to play a strong role in the National Party and be a voice to the concerns around values that people have raised with me," he said.

New Zealand doesn’t need a bunch of self-righteous extremists trying to divide us into “good” and “bad” as they try to advance an agenda of religiously-based control of our lives by government. One possible Rightwing “Christian” party is now officially gone—one pipe dream fantasy remains.

The 2020 elections now look even brighter than they did before this announcement. That’s very good news, indeed.

Not their destiny

New Zealand just went through "Christian Political Fortnight" as the newsmedia gave breathless coverage to two people talking about forming Rightwing “Christian” political parties. The important thing to note is that based on history, and the nature of modern New Zealand, and the dynamics of the 2020 elections, any such parties, if either actually happens, are almost certain to fail.

Since the MMP era began in 1996, no overtly or mainly Christian Party has ever crossed the 5% threshold (see chart above) or won an Electorate Seat, and so, none have ever entered Parliament [a YouTube video from CGP Grey, “Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained” explains the MMP electoral system we use in New Zealand]. The best they ever did was way back in 1996. Some would say that the second-best year was 2014, however, that year the Conservative Party denied it even was a “Christian” party, though it was led by a self-described conservative Christian and it espoused positions backed by conservative Christian activists. Does it even count as a “Christian” party? Probably not, but including them in the chart shows that not even a non-Christian “Christian” party has been able to get into Parliament.

There was another party, United Future New Zealand, that was formed by the merger of a conservative Christian party (Future New Zealand, which used to be the Christian Democrats) and a centrist one, the United Party. It was in Parliament 2002-2017, though with just one MP from 2008 until 2017. The party was saddled with Rightwing Christianists from 2002-2007, though they left in a huff before the 2008 election, which allowed then party leader Peter Dunne to declare the party solidly centrist. The thing with United Future is that not only was it not officially a Christian party, they also didn’t officially push positions backed by conservative Christian activists, even if its conservative Christians caused trouble for Dunne and the party, particularly when it was in coalition with the Centre-Left NZ Labour Party. The fact that the party did so well in 2002 was precisely because of the centrist policies Dunne advocated, not the because of the Rightwing “Christian” people tagging along, so it’s simply not logical to lump them in with actual Christian parties, all of which have been Rightwing in New Zealand (although the early leaders of the Labour Party often described their agenda as “Christianity in action” or “Christian socialism”). So, the fact United Future had a gaggle of grumpy conservative Christian MPs didn't make it a “Christian” party in any way, in my view.

To do well, a Rightwing “Christian” party would have to tap into a large field of like-minded voters, but there’s no evidence that such a large group exists. Almost half (48%) of New Zealanders said they were Christian in the 2013 Census, the most recent figures we have available due to the disaster that was the 2018 Census. However, 42% of New Zealanders said they had no religion, a figure that includes not only atheists and agnostics, but also believers of various sorts who don’t have a particular religion. 6% declared non-Christian religions, and 4% gave no answer whatsoever.

Conservative Christians of all sorts make up maybe 5% of the population, give or take, but let’s be generous and say it’s double that. Isn’t ten percent of the population enough potentially? No, and for one reason: Adults. The Census counts everyone who is in New Zealand on Census night, resident and visitor, adult and child. We cannot assume that the 5%, let alone the overly generous 10%, are adults eligible and registered to vote.

Even so, let’s pretend that a very generous 10% of the registered voters are Rightwing Christians. Even if that were true, any explicitly or implicitly “Christian” party would still fail to get 5% of the Party Vote, as they always have. That’s because most conservative Christians care about a lot more than just social issues, which is the only point of difference that Rightwing “Christian” parties have from other parties. Such voters know that if they want to get things done in Parliament, they need to be IN Parliament, and the only conservative party that will back them, at least some of the time, on their social conservatism—and get into Parliament—is the New Zealand National Party. Most conservative Christian voters in New Zealand have historically been astute enough to know that a vote for a Rightwing “Christian” party is a wasted vote, so they vote for “good enough” National.

So, at the moment, there’s a lot of blustering about the possible two Rightwing “Christian” parties that may be formed, either by National MP Alfred Ngaro, or by the leaders of a far-right “Christian” cult church that set up a Rightwing “Christian” party that tried and failed to get into Parliament some 15 years ago. Neither one is a serious contender for success this year, though of the two Ngaro has a slightly better chance.

I’ve read commentators making all sorts of breathless predictions, such as, Ngaro (who I think is an opportunistic hypocrite) could appeal to Polynesians who back Labour. That relies on the false premise that they always vote religiously, and they obviously don’t. Second, there are many reasons why such voters often back Labour, just as there are many reasons apart from religion why some conservative Christians back National. Turnout and actual vote totals suggest that National already has the lion’s share, so to speak, of conservative Christian voters of all races, and most such voters any new “Christian” party got would come from National. In any case, it’s insulting to Polynesians—or anyone, really—to suggest they’d be single-issue voters because of their race or culture.

A conservative Christian wrote a piece for Noted, talking about why these parties Rightwing "Christian" parties would be bad for conservative Christians. Among other things he said:

Many voters implacably oppose legalising marijuana. Some Christians seem to believe there is an 11th commandment that says “Thou shall not smoke dope”. This could be a good banner for Ngaro and his Christian soldiers to march under, gathering up other clean-living folk to push the party over the 5% barrier into Parliament without having to win an electorate seat.

What he was talking about is that there will be a referendum on some form of legalisation of marijuana held at the 2020 election. I’m sure it will draw some older voters’ ire, and also that of some religious conservatives. However, they always vote, anyway—older voters in particular. At the same time, that referendum will also draw younger—and more Progressive—voters to the polls to vote for legalisation, and younger voters vote overwhelmingly for the Greens (in particular) and also for Labour—not National, and definitely not for any Rightwing “Christian” parties campaigning against the very position they support.

So far, all that suggests no net gain for National, but probably a loss of Party Votes if the Rightwing “Christian” parties do well, but not well enough to get into Parliament. At the same time, the very referendum that might drive “implacably opposed” social conservatives will also drive younger voters to cancel them out.

That leaves only one way for Rightwing “Christian” parties to get into Parliament: Winning an Electorate seat. They have two ways to do that: That church's party could take the Māori Electorate of Te Tai Tokerau in Northland from Labour, or for National to gift a safe National seat to Ngaro. Both are fraught.

The Te Tai Tokerau scenario assumes an awful lot, not the least that voters will pick the bombastic Hone Harawira rather than the incumbent MP, Labour’s Kelvin Davis, who is a government minister. It’s impossible to see any scenario in which any National Party Prime Minister would give Harawira a ministerial portfolio. I think it’s likely that his time has passed, and his campaign would come across as little more than a quixotic grudge match. And that assumes the often Left-leaning Harawira could resist fighting with the Rightwing “Christians” he was in bed with.

It’s possible that National could gift a safe National seat to Ngaro, but where? There are a lot of electorates that National can count on winning, but that doesn’t mean their voters are obedient and subservient to the party’s wishes as the National voters in Epsom are. Moreover, many National voters have no particular love for Rightwing “Christian” politics, so if they lack party obedience, National can’t count on getting Ngaro in as the candidate from some Rightwing “Christian” party.

This all matters because if—IF—the Rightwing “Christians” fail to cross the 5% threshold, but if—IF—they win an Electorate seat, then all their Party Votes will count. This means that if they got around 3% of the Party Vote AND an Electorate seat they’d likely get 3 or 4 MPs (depending on a number of factors), and that could literally give National a shot at of re-taking government.

On balance, there is a remote chance, built on a a number of things going absolutely perfectly, that could enable Rightwing “Christian” party into Parliament. This is highly improbable to happen because 1. Rightwing “Christian” politicians (and Rightwing “Christians” in general) aren’t very popular in New Zealand (they’re called “god-botherers” by ordinary Kiwis), so they’d have a hard time gaining votes from anyone but their small base—most of whom are too practical to abandon National. 2. New Zealand is barely Christian (or, it wasn’t in 2013…), and the number saying they’re Christian has been falling steadily; New Zealand is much less Christian than it was 23 years ago when a Rightwing “Christian” party came the closest to getting into Parliament. 3. The very referendum that conservatives think will help a Rightwing “Christian” party into Parliament will also drive their exact opposites to the polls, likely far more than cancelling out any benefit to the Rightwing “Christian” party/parties. And, finally, the people behind these Rightwing “Christian” parties that may come into being are people who aren't liked generally and who have a history of saying polarising things that turn off the majority of mainstream New Zealanders, and, partly because of that, there’s absolutely no mass affection for them.

Given all that, and especially if Labour is still popular next year, I feel confident saying that this fortnight’s flurry of news about the possible formation of a Rightwing “Christian” party or parties has been all sizzle and no sausage. I will, however offer two words of warning: Brexit and Donnie. Hardly anyone thought those two elections would turn out the way they did, and that has taught us that one underestimates the far right at their peril. We are seeing the march of far right, fascistic populist nationalism all over the Western world, and it would be foolish to think it can’t happen here, too, no matter how improbable that may be. However, if it does come, it’s unlikely to be religious based, and that’s one thing we can take some comfort in.

Update: One of the two parties is not going ahead.

Related:

“Take it from a Christian conservative: a Ngaro splinter party is a terrible idea” – The Spinoff (also linked above)
“John Armstrong's opinion: Christian parties are of little assistance to the centre-right” – TVNZ’s One News Now
“I don't see Brian and Hannah Tamaki's Christian party lasting long” – Stuff
“Could Christian soldiers march no-mates National into office?” – Noted
“Coalition NZ: Hannah Tamaki, KFC, abortion, Alfred Ngaro” – Newshub
“The birth of Destiny’s child” – newsroom
“Where Hannah Tamaki stands on homosexuality and Jacinda Ardern” – Newshub

Making her bigotry an issue

I’d planned on trying to avoid posting much about individual Democratic presidential candidates because I’m neutral. However, today there was such vile bigotry directed at one candidate that it must be called out. Sadly, I’ve had to do that for decades. Worse still, I can see this won’t be the last time I’ll need to do.

Today MSNBC anchor Kendis Gibson hosted a discussion about Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s religion, and how that relates to religious conservatives (video above). The segment began well, with Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian, who has long talked about Christianity and gay people (I featured a video of him on this blog back in 2012). He discussed how Mayor Pete’s religious views fit into certain Christian views, and how Frankie Graham’s recent loopy attacks on Mayor Pete shows Graham is desperately out of step with core Christian tenets, and how his rank hypocrisy about the current occupant undercuts all his arguments against Mayor Pete.

The next guest was a “conservative radio host” who is so unimportant that she doesn’t even have a Wikipedia entry. She attacked Mayor Pete for “making his gayness an issue". And how did he do that? He dared to share a kiss with his husband when Pete announced his candidacy! Shock! Horror!

“Clearly Pete Buttigieg has made his gayness an issue in this campaign,” she educated us. “He’s brought his husband up on stage. They shared a kiss during his announcement.”

Gibson pushed back, pointing out that Mayor Pete didn’t make his gayness an issue any more than a straight person makes their straightness an issue, and that he barely mentioned that he’s a gay person in his announcement. The “conservative radio host” doubled down:

I think he made it a huge issue. He talked about his spouse, Chasten, and the fact that they were, um, you know, married. And let’s be real: This is not a typical candidate. We haven’t had had a gay presidential candidate ever in the history of the United States. And he made it an issue. He could have ignored it. He could have said nothing. And people would have speculated about it. But he made it an issue. So he wants that to be an identifier.

Gibson could be heard laughing with incredulity at the “conservative radio host”. Matthew Vines, meanwhile, could be seen in split-screen shots apparently trying to avoid smiling, much less laughing at the “conservative radio host” and her moronic statements. He succeeded, and only reacted at the very end when he nodded in agreement with Gibson’s pushback when he said that Mayor Pete “only did what many straight straight couples have done,” to which the “conservative radio host” responded, “Well they shared a kiss on stage, which is unusual.”

Here’s the thing. There are many Rightwingers in the USA who agree with her distaste for the very existence of openly gay people, and the older they are, the more likely they are to hold fast to such antique ideas: Younger people of whatever political leaning couldn’t possibly care less, and they don’t think a gay couple sharing a kiss is “unusual”. Maybe older Rightwingers just need to get out more.

What’s so deeply offensive about the comments from that “conservative radio host” is what she was really saying when she declared that Mayor Pete “could have ignored [the fact he’s gay]. He could have said nothing. And people would have speculated about it. But he made it an issue.” What she was really saying was that if he was deeply closeted, like many Republican politicians have been, it would have been different and somehow better. Seriouslly?!

How, precisely could he have “ignored it”? He’s married to a man, he’s a public figure who is already known as being a married gay man. Was he supposed to just pretend none of it’s true? That he’s really just a bachelor waiting for the right girl to come along? Because what she’s really saying is that he has to lie about himself in order to make her feel better. But if she’s threatened by a mere kiss, what does that say about how she feels about gay people in general?

We are well past the time when gay people have to lie about who they are in order for heterosexual snowflakes on the Right to feel comfortable in their safespace of ignorance. Gay people are as fully human and complex as heterosexuals are, and when someone objects to a gay person being fully human, they’re not being rational: They’re being bigots.

I’m so sick of having to call this shit out over and over again, as I’ve been doing for more than 35 years. Heterosexuals do not get to tell gay people how to be gay people. They do not get to object when a married gay couple shares a kiss just like a married heterosexual couple does. And they damn sure don’t get to complain about a gay person “making being gay an issue” just by being, you know, gay when it’s clearly the heterosexual who has made it “an issue”.

I don’t know who that “conservative radio host” is or why she’s used as a pundit, but based on her, um, "contribution" to that segment, I hope I never see her again. When I watch a political discussion, I want to hear the speakers on all sides of an issue, whether I agree or disagree with them, offer intelligent, reasoned, and rational commentary. Rank, bald bigotry is none of those things.

People can agree with Mayor Pete (or any of the other candidates) or not. They also don’t have to like any particular candidate, and that can even based on nothing more than feelings. But when talking about candidates, especially when criticising them, doing so based merely on who they are is never an acceptable line of attack. Ever. Things like race, gender, age, religious belief (or lack of), class, and sexuality are never acceptable lines of attack.

There are things I like and dislike about pretty much every Democratic candidate for president. In fact, if they could all be mixed together and extruded, the result would probably be pretty much perfect for me. But that’s not how it works: We take the candidates in their totality, look at the issues they talk about and the vision they offer for dealing with those issues, and we make our choice. Who they are, the bits and pieces of their identity, may be interesting, but they're  NOT what we’ll be electing: We’ll be electing a whole human being. Rational people understand that—it’s too bad that “conservative radio host” can’t.

So far, I’ve ignored the personal attacks on the Democratic candidates, most of which have been merely silly or childish. But today’s display of bald bigotry was so egregious that I had to respond. The worst thing, though, is that this won’t be the last time I’ll need to do that because the human capacity for bigotry, and people's need to express it, seems to be unlimited. And that means I'll have to talk about individual candidates more than I intended to.

Welcome to the 2020 US Presidential Election campaign.

If the video above doesn’t play, watch it on the MSNBC site.

Advancing the better ideas

If the 2016 US presidential election taught us only one thing, it ought to be that almost nothing is as it seems in American politics. There are hidden agendas, secret motives, and fake players literally everywhere, and on all sides of the ideological spectrum—and non-ideological interference from hostile foreign governments, too. We need to be smart, and suspicious, whenever we see literally anything in the news, and this week provided a perfect example.

This past week, “protesters” showed up at campaign event for Mayor Pete Buttigieg in Iowa. The protesters were dresses as “Satan”, “Jesus”, and one who was supposed to be Mayor Pete, apparently “whipping” the actor playing “Jesus” as the one playing “Satan” looked on and laughed. Street political theatre, and—on the surface—there are some things that make it seem legitimate.

Iowa has always had a politically active extremist “Christian” element, and anti-LGBT+ bigotry has been one of their mainstays. This has been true for probably a couple decades at least. Also, the night before, two “protesters” shouted at Mayor Pete, also in Iowa, about “Sodom and Gomorrah”, which biblical legend says were destroyed due to their inhospitality to strangers, but which “Christian” extremists persist in declaring were actually supposedly destroyed because of homosexuality (despite the fact that those biblical stories make absolutely clear that it was the sin of inhospitality).

Given all that, it’s understandable why some people might think the “protests” were both real and an expression of “Christian” extremism. But there’s plenty of reason to doubt that’s the case, and that’s why normal people must be careful to not overreact. As I said yesterday in a post on the AmeriNZ Facebook Page:

[The political street theatre shows a] brilliant, though evil, strategy: The “protestors” are anti-gay bigots, sure, but what they REALLY want is for normal people to over-react and come across as condemning Christianity so that the religious extremists can then use that as “proof” that those “evil libruls” and “homosekshuls” are “anti-Christian”. There will be more of these provocations, and they’ll become quite offensive to normal people, all in the hope it goads normal people into the overreaction the extremists are trying to get.

This isn’t new behaviour for the far right in the USA: They often take deliberate action to incite overreaction from mainstream Americans, or the Left specifically, so that they can use those overreactions as “proof” that they’re “victims”. I’ve talked about this very effective strategy many times on this blog.

I warned in that Facebook post:

Don’t fall into their trap! They’re victims of bad ideas, and that’s the only thing we know for sure. In real life, they might be good to their mothers and kind to animals, so treating them as if they’re evil isn’t rational or a good strategy. Stick only to calmly criticising their bad ideas, not them (maybe a critique of their acting technique is fair game, though?).

When dealing with religious extremists of any stripe, it’s tempting to retaliate against them personally, which only feeds their need to pretend to be “victims” of those mean Leftists. The people are not the actual problem—it’s their bad ideas, and this is where others come in:

Normal, rational people don’t behave like the extremists. Most conservative Christians wouldn’t behave so awfully, nor would mainstream Christians. Moderate and Progressive Christians have a special duty to counter the extremists’ bad theology, lack of any understanding about what the Gospels actually say, and their false narrative about homosexuality in particular, because this is really a family fight among Christians, one in which beating up gay people (so far, only rhetorically…) is a political tool, a provocation to get an overreaction so the extremists can advance their politically-motivated culture wars.

This isn’t turning the other cheek, it’s taking them on appropriately—countering their bad ideas, which takes away their power. Overreacting and lashing out at them is exactly what they want.

And that, in a nutshell, is what will be needed: It’s not about retaliating, it’s not even really about attacking their bad ideas, it’s about presenting better ideas. Instead of calling them and their ideas “stupid” (or worse), we need to point out why they’re wrong, sure, but more importantly, what the better ideas are. We won’t ever defeat those bad ideas by attacking the carriers of those ideas, not when our goal is really the same as the extremists: To win over bystanders watching the show and saying nothing. We need to present the truth and to show through example that better ideas should defeat bad ideas.

The implication of this is that when people DO scream against the “Christian” extremists, and they will, we’ll need to be prepared to call them out, too, because the goal here is to defeat the ideas. However, that’s not entirely the case. Those screaming insults at the “Christian” extremists have a use, though they’ll probably hate that fact: They make a more moderate response seem so much more reasonable and relatable by comparison.

I saw this play out many times when I was a LGBT+ activist in the 1980s and 1990s. The street radicals, people like Act-Up and Queer Nation, etc., were protesting in the streets, being confrontational and, yes, sometimes offensive. But because they were doing that, we “respectable” activists got access to elected officials to present our case—making the exact same demands we always had, and the same demands, in fact, as the street radicals, but we did it politely and in business attire, and we got results. This wasn’t because we were so utterly brilliant (although I was, obviously…), but because we seemed so “calm” and “reasonable” by comparison. In other words, the reason we were listened to and the reason we were as successful as we were came as a result of the pressure from the “unreasonable” activists on our own side.

None of that works, however, if there aren’t calm and moderate voices on the side of reason. And, it’s because this fight is really over different versions of Christian theology leaking into the political sphere that we need Moderate and Progressive Christians to lift their game to counter the “Christian” extremists.

The majority of us are probably best to stay out of the fight. While we may or may not be equipped to personally engage on theology, many of us will be dismissed out of hand because we’re not religious (or religious enough), because we’re Centrists or to the Left of Centre, or because we’re LGBT+. There’s one more reason to not engage, and it’s how I ended that Facebook post: “Besides, forgive your enemies—nothing pisses them off more!”

Politics, electoral politics in particular, is in part a great big public dance, and who ultimately wins is whoever calls the music. We must present the sweet music of reason, and counter the dissonance of the extremists with better music.

Let’s get warmed up. It’s going to be a long dance.