Binge-drinking

In the NZ Herald on the 5th of January, Mick Duncan wrote an opinion piece about women and binge-drinking.

He believes the reason why so many young (middle-class) women go out binge-drinking is that they’ve lived cotton wool-lives, protected from all sorts of risks, told not to speak to strangers, driven to and from school, and much more. Everything was made safe for them as they grew up.

Binge-drinking involves risk: I might get arrested, I might get knocked down by a car, I might get raped or wind up in bed with a total stranger. I might not even survive the night.

While it isn’t much of a reason for these young women to be doing what they do, it perhaps shows that helping children avoid risks isn’t as healthy at it might seem.

It also shows, perhaps, that these people know little about bigger adventures in life; they feel their lives are constrained. (And the same probably goes for the young men, including the boy racers.)

What do you think about Mick's conclusion?

NZ Herald apparently can't make up its mind about NZ's 'anti-smacking' law

Bob McCroskie of Family First sent a letter to the NZ Herald after the latter's recent mocking of the poll Family First initiated relating to the anti-smacking law. It wasn't printed, so here's what was said:

Your editorial “Spare us a smacking referendum” is fascinating in the light of previous editorials by the NZ Herald. In 2001 the NZ Herald Editorial said “ Excessive force is already illegal.. Repealing section 59 would, in fact, promote only confusion ...” In 2003 “(section 59) has led to calls for a change that would amount to a smacking ban. Is it necessary to go that far? Probably not .” And in 2005 “ Section 59 is not the reason that children have been mistreated .”
Now you accuse Family First of ‘alarmism’ simply because we are promoting a change to the anti-smacking law consistent with your own argument – a change which according to the latest poll is supported by a whopping 85% of NZ’ers. They understand that a light smack by a loving parent is not violence or child abuse. Good parents should not be criminalised. Persecution can still happen without prosecution.
Perhaps the next time the Herald prints the ‘alarmist’ photo gallery of MP’s who voted for the Electoral Finance Law, it could also include the photos of the MP’s who voted for the anti-smacking law against the will of the overwhelming majority of NZ’ers.

The debate continues - thank goodness!

A few posts ago I wrote about an editorial that appeared in the NZ Herald which berated the Christian churches for not speaking out about poverty in NZ. It seems more and more likely that whoever wrote the editorial was struggling for something that might be a little controversial. Suffice to say, an opinion piece by Tapu Misa showed up some of the fallacies in the editorial, and on Friday, David Moxon and Brown Turei also added the voices to the debate.

At least the Herald was gracious enough to allow some differing opinions on the matter. Moxon and Turei's piece finishes with these sentences:
Outside the state, the churches are the biggest providers of social services in this country. This field is our daily reality. Challenging political policy and wanting to influence the shaping of policy with Christian values in these areas is crucial. It always has been and always will be.
You can read the rest of the piece by clicking here.

Archbishop David Moxon and Archbishop Brown Turei are Co-Presiding Bishops of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia.

Tapu Misa on what the church has to say

For those who don't read the NZ Herald, it sometimes takes a while to catch up with opinion pieces and reports that come from that paper.

I've just found a 'perspective' by Tapu Misa, an Auckland journalist with an extensive career across a variety of media. She's been a feature writer for the NZ Herald in the past, and a staff writer for MORE and North & South magazines. She wrote this piece last Wednesday, and it makes a good comparison to the NZ Herald editorial I wrote a post about last week.

In it she looks at whether the church both has the right to pronounce on the nation, and whether it still has the moral integrity to do so. Well worth a read!

Incidentally, Misa's relatively recent conversion experience (2007) is the subject of another one of her columns.

The NZ Herald pronounces

Church leaders invariably lead with their chins in political debate. We have not heard from them for some time on poverty, in fact not since the last National Government was in office. They implicitly conceded this on Friday when they declared: "Our primary concern since the 'Hikoi of Hope' held 10 years ago has remained constant."
They could have fooled us. Their hope may have been constant but not their action.

This is the opening of an editorial from the NZ Herald, which appeared at the end of March. It's interesting in view of the connections of Church and State that we wrote about in a previous post. It's also interesting that it's critical of the Church's views; some of what it says may be true, some may just be the leader writer ranting.

What do you think?

Being there for the teens in trouble

An article by Simon Collins, from the NZ Herald on Feb 9th, 2008, writes about mentoring programmes that are up and runing in New Zealand, including Brothers in Arms, a Christian group, which was formed in 2006. 'It's one of a growing number of grassroots initiatives showing voluntary goodwill can sometimes turn around young lives.'

The article details several case histories of mentors and youngsters who've built a relationship which has helped the younger person to make progress in their life. Mentors vary in age from twenty-somethings to sixty-somethings, and for the most part they just involve the kids in their lives, giving them a view of the world that's different from the often-limited view they have.

There are at least a half-dozen mentoring groups in New Zealand at present, and the article lists information about them, as well as their website addresses.

God's own land ... maybe even more than we thought

This is the title of an article by Simon Collins that appeared in the NZ Herald on the 29th March, 2008.

In it, Dr John Stenhouse, a Christian historian from Otago University, says: New Zealand may or may not be "God's own country" but it has always been more Christian than we thought. He told 'an evangelical Christian congress that "secular and left-liberal" historians, who have dominated New Zealand historical writing, have distorted the country's history to push contemporary agendas. "For most of our history, Christianity has been more widespread and influential than many historians, especially in recent years, have acknowledged."

You can read the whole article here, or, if it's no longer available on the original site, contact Mike Crowl, National Mission Research and Resource Assistant.