NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ATTACKS SECULAR EDUCATION IN CHRISTCHURCH

By in large there are three main types of Schools in Christchurch, N.Z as a whole.

PRIVATE: Which is approx. 95% funded by parents, benefactors.

RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS: Which are 80% funded by the taxpayer, the rest by parents.    

PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Which are 95% funded by the taxpayer and the rest by parents.  

The National Government announced savage cuts to public schooling in post-earthquake  Christchurch last week.

Widespread closures and amalgamations were the order of the day.

All but exempt from the city-wide ‘bloodshed’ were Religious Schools – the very same schools that ask for tax-payer funding, want to be part of ‘the system’ when it suits them.

Faith schools have the beggars bowl out the Government for funding, seek to use the state colloquium but then in the next breath want to be seen as somehow ‘separate’.

I guess that is the key to all religious schools.

Separate children by their parents faith.

There is however one small problem here: it’s taxpayers money they are using to ring fence their way into their version of eternity and the administrator of the tax-system is The New Zealand Government.

All funding comes with strings.

No let me re-phrase that.

All funding should come with strings.

But as we have just seen here in Christchurch when it comes to Religious Education in New Zealand – all schools are not created equal.    

Secular Schools are the ‘poor country cousins’  

Gerry Brownlee (Earthquake Recovery Minister) the very person who announced these cuts to secular schooling was at one stage a teacher at St Bedes – a Catholic Boys High School – one of the faith based schools exempt ‘the chop’. 

National deputy and one time leader Bill English, a fellow Papist, is a staunch advocate for separating all N.Z children based on religious identity.         

Yes, Catholic/Faith schools have closed and been amalgamated here in Canterbury.

But this is only as a result of the fact they posed ‘Health and Safety’ issues and not because their rolls had dropped as pupils moved away.     

The evolution of charter schools will create more of these isolationist serfdom's, jobs for the dog-collars and more inequities in how New Zealand schools are administered.     

New Zealand can never call itself a secular country whilst the state not just financially supports but also grants privilege, as we see here in Christchurch, to the schools who discriminate against those in their communities based on religious beliefs.    

R.I.P Antonie Dixon: The sad product of childhood religious indoctrination

[Above is excerpt from Dixon’s now defunct myspace site]

Reports ‘hot off the press’, indicate Antonie Dixon, died in his Paremoremo Prison cell, last night.

His dead body was found with head & neck injuries.

Antonie, came from a family of devout Jehovah Witness’s, and if one believes his court testimony and that of his sister, this very same deeply-religious family molested him as a child, and then allowed fellow church members to do add to his abuse.

What is known is from an early age Dixon, went door to door prophesising with his mum, spent hours in church and at home recited verbatim Bible passages before he went to school.

His young mind was filled with tales of devils, demons and apocalypses.

He believed his father was a product of a union from an angel, a new world order was taking over.

Part of Dixon’s childhood discipline, saw him chained-up like a dog.

This childhood indoctrination, mental health issues mixed with drugs produced the outcomes, we saw manifesting itself in extreme violence.

The drugs, mental health issues are openly discussed, but his twisted religious up-bringing escapes criticism.

The strange & perturbing theme about Dixon’s case, was we all laughed at his ludicrous claims - like the one, the N.Z Police used a 747 aircraft to observe his movements, but the moment he stated his weird religious convictions, like people growing horns from their heads – we all are forced to take him seriously and enquire no further.

To avoid upsetting people in society who believe in Gods and demons etc, we compromise our very legal system and decency itself, and allow the same home environment that contributed to Dixon’s psychopathic actions, to be immune scrutiny and admonishment.

What is glaringly apparent, is no one of the state-employed psychologists, had the fortitude inside our court or at the pre-trail hearings, to analyse the issues behind Dixon’s obvious mental health problems – for to do so, by definition, would mean attacking his extreme religious up-bringing , the Jehovah Witness Church, and the beliefs of millions of Kiwi’s.

Ironically it was only when he was in prison Dixon was received treatment for his psychosis problems and that treatment had allowed Dixon to come forward to give evidence and tell his pitiful and cruel upbringing which he called “a chamber of horrors”.

As a country, on one hand we ban corporal punishment, but we still think it’s fine for parents to twist young-minds like Antonie’s, with harmful information like “woman are immoral” and “you’ll never be good enough to obtain ever-lasting life and burn in hell”.

It’s fine by our society to brainwash young minds with the ridiculous beliefs that “God will talk to you” to “obey his commands” and to look for “biblical visions” - even if the voices in your head command you to chop-off a limb with a samurai sword.

It’s perfectly permissible for your parents to dub you “the devils spawn”, but where they to smack your bum, they’d face charges and possible loss of custody.

When the hell are we going to wake-up and place religious teachings of this kind in the same category as ‘abuse’?

Footnote; When Antonie was ten, Social Welfare agencies, took him from his parents and placed him in state care. At the time, no mention was made of the psychological abuse he had suffered at the hands of his parents and church members – just the physical abuse at the hands of his mother was denoted on the case notes.

Courts soft on crims who use religion as a defence

An Assyrian Christian has been convicted after hitting his 20-year-old daughter.

The reasons behind Ishak Ishak (pictured above) dishing-out his hiding to his daughter was that she was going out with a Muslim.

His daughters choice in suitor would have bought shame on his family and that was sufficient enough for him to act in what would be construed as a 'crime of honour'.

We are all familiar with 'Honour Crimes' from overseas, where male relatives pursue and sometimes kill female members of their family, but in this case, the crime occurred in suburban Wellington.

This wasn't Pakistan.

The Judge in the case told Ishak he had to comply with the laws of New Zealand and that she was concerned at his behaviour. But not apparently concerned enough to actually imprison him, instead sentencing him to come up for sentence if called upon within nine months.

In other words he was allowed to walk free from the court, setting either a dangerous precedent or merely re-enforcing religions status in 'the eyes of the law'?

It appears, at least looking at this case, religious beliefs can be used effectively as a defence against the full force of the law in terms of punishment at least. One's religious/cultural beliefs are evidently mitigating factors and will be taken into account when sentencing.

What other conclusion can be reached?

It was outlined in court Ishak had gone to his daughter's room while she was in bed to confront her about going out with a Muslim. He became angry and abusive and hit out at her several times while she cowered under a blanket.

Now let's see what would happen if we take the religious factor out of the case completely.

1.) Ishak,returns home from works, gets into an argument with his daughter,assaults her. He says in his defence "I was angry" & offers profuse regrets for his actions. It's likely the court would ensure he get's anger management to treat his problem.

2.) Ishak, comes home from the pub intoxicated and assaults his daughter. Doubtless in this example some drug & alcohol rehabilitation would be issued by the court.

Looking at these scenario's it's therefore prudent to ask - why didn't the judge restrict Ishak from practicing his religion?

He was open to the court his 'beliefs' were behind the attack, so the judge was in a position in this case to strike at the issue behind his criminal behaviour, in the same way were his defence team to blame alcohol as the catalyst.

But an individuals rights to practice their faith is sacresent, even when it leads to practices deemed criminal.

This we see, time after time.