By Kerry Campbell

“????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ??, ??? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???”
-Janet Jolly Hoskin

The issues with that are manifold. The overarching ideology/philosophy ruling State Schools curriculums has been secular humanism. “Secular” means literally “of this age, or world”. Within the context of a Christian worldview it means “without God or in the absence of God”. It signifies the difference between worldly or temporal wisdom and eternal or spiritual reality.

The real issue with this driving force of all state schools is the essential assumption that all of reality can be explained in the absence of God. In the sentiment of Laplace – “?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????????”. In short, secularism – is not- as many suppose – neutral in it’s outlook.

??? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??????????.

But it is decidedly biased against any spiritual interpretation of reality, though in terms of every other spiritual view of reality (bar Christianity), it will pay lip service to many indigenous religions in a reluctant, downplayed, tokenistic sort of way. Partly to keep a sense of credibility, by having to admit religion ever since “Adam was a boy” is an integral part of the human condition.

The allowance of things such as “Bible in Schools” where a defanged, sanitized version of Christianity was part of that tokenism. Because of the increasing animosity towards this belief system (that has benefitted humanity in so many areas – that to question it’s importance in the History of Western civilization is to be grossly ignorant) – it has now been completely de-legitimized and declared anathema in the public square.

I think the take home point I wish to make, is that secularism is decidedly not neutral.

Or to put it another way – when politicians and journalists put the worst spin possible on another politician because he or she may bring their religion or faith into politics, the question needs to be asked – “?????’? ???????? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ???????”

And I hope that all agree – of course they do!

To deny that a secularist is just as culpable for bringing his or her humanistic, and often atheistic view of reality to the fore over issues of justice and equality – is preposterous and a lie. ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????, ??? ?????? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????????? ???? ? ????????? ?????????.

Why should that be allowed to carry on?

It is a complete misunderstanding of the old debate of the separation of Church and State, which has been abused to the point where to be religious and a politician is tantamount to political heresy, (and I use that term deliberately).

The separation of Church and State is a Christian idea, and it was born out of the idea that two authorities exist side by side and are complementary and legitimate. A Christians life is guided by the authority of scripture, and the authority of the state is recognized and legitimized, and is the reason why – wherever Christianity is faithfully practiced, there they will be model citizens of the State. But, at the same time, recognizing that the government or the State is an ordained authority whose chief mandate is to keep civil law and order.

History has shown that wherever the State made Christianity the only legal religion, and afforded the “Church” legal and social preferences and greater privileges, there the Christian message became degraded, and compromised. It is a well known concept that the two authorities should not mix, at the cost of losing the legitimacy of both. The pulpit should not be a soap box for politics, and neither should the government create conditions that either favour the Church or prejudice its existence through fear, or favour.

And this situation where politicians who espouse faith are browbeaten into a position where they must conform to the idea that their faith must not inform their political decisions -must cease. It is not only unacceptable, it is pragmatically – impossible. Just as it is impossible for an atheist to enter politics without their basic assumptions about reality influencing their moral and civil duties. This must be frankly admitted on both sides. Christianity, beyond many other religions takes into account and respects human autonomy, and part of that entails the freedom of conscience and belief. In this way, a person who happens to be atheist, or a Muslim, or any other worldview, is still respected as a person-despite what they believe.

Those politicians, (and since they have publicly expressed what I’m referring to, though these are but recent examples, I shall name them), Messrs Muller and Luxon, willingly put themselves in the position of neither representing their respective beliefs sincerely, nor keeping their personal integrity intact, since they deny in public what they believe in private.

But ultimately who can blame them when they desperately want to bring undoubtedly good decisions to NZ politics (at least in the main) but are hamstrung by the biased and intolerant attitude of mainstream New Zealand citizens? We the public are also responsible – who treat them with such disdain as soon as we realize their loyalties to a religious worldview – and immediately disqualify them on that decidedly biased basis.

We must also take our place in the hierarchy of responsibility.

But again, I must not let our secular “friends” off from their responsibility for decades of bad press towards the Christian worldview. Never has propaganda been so endemic and unquestioned in the history of the West, as that aimed at making Christianity in particular, and all religion in general so mischaracterized, unappreciated and marginalized.

Western civilization was built on the philosophical categories of the Greeks, and the moral categories of Judeo/Christianity and were a formidable force in its success. To disparage Christians, and encourage “cancel culture” with their participation in politics is a great disservice and is just as wrong headed as that which we observe regarding the preferential treatment and elevation of one ethnic group over another in present day NZ.

Enough is enough.