New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority Rules Against Advertising that Jesus Heals Cancer

Tags

Advertising Standards Authority, ASA, charismatics, Equippers Church, evangelicals, His Right to Say It, Jesus heals cancer, morality police, Napier, New Zealand, Noam Chomsky, offensive, Robert Faurisson

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint against a church billboard which read “Jesus Heals Cancer”. The billboard was erected by the charismatic-evangelical Equippers’ Church in Napier:

The Complaints Board of the ASA ruled that “the statement was provocative enough to be likely to cause serious offence to those people who were dealing with, or knew people who were dealing with, cancer.” The Board added that “the public nature of the billboard was likely to cause widespread offence in the light of generally prevailing community standards.” Furthermore, the Board ruled that the church billboard was in breach of the provision in the Code of Ethics which required “Truthful presentation”, and that “the advertisement was likely to deceive or mislead people.” Although the Board accepted that the church believed that Jesus could heal people from cancer, it ruled that the church’s claim to cure cancer was not substantiated. Contrary to some media headlines, the Board did not go so far as to rule explicitly that Jesus could not cure cancer, but in ruling that the billboard was “likely to deceive or mislead people” implied that the claim was untrue.

What is the ASA? The ASA is merely a private society, its membership comprised of various media and advertising entities. Now, given the propensity of commercial advertisers to tell lies, exaggerate, and annoy the public, just to make a buck, generally speaking it is a good thing that advertisers have got together to self-regulate.

But it’s another thing altogether to issue pronouncements on a local church’s misguided but honestly intended billboard. Who the hell do the ASA board members think they are? Do they think they are New Zealand’s Morality Police, pronouncing on any words they discover littering the landscape? On this occasion, the ASA has stepped way over the line. An organisation that is intended to self-regulate the advertising industry should simply be ignored when it makes pompous pronouncements on a local church’s billboard. If the Equippers’ Church weren’t such pious charismatic evangelicals, they should probably just tell the ASA where to go.

But is it offensive to cancer sufferers in the neighbourhood? Of course. However, silencing an honest (albeit deluded) church’s proclamation sets a dangerous precedent. Who will be the next minority group to be silenced because their views or behaviour don’t agree with New Zealand’s pragmatic yet passionless middle-class values? While I personally consider that there is as much chance of Jesus healing somebody from cancer as there is for the Earth to start spinning in the other direction, if we don’t defend the right of the ignorant, the atavistic, and even the despicable to peddle their absurd views, we support a system which denies freedom of speech to those minorities who most need it. 

As Noam Chomsky said, in defending a famous French holocaust denier’s right to express his denial of the Jewish holocaust (despite Chomsky’s opinion that holocaust denial was quite incorrect, and the holocaust marked a terrible period in human history): “It is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended.”

Fortunately, the ASA has no authority to enforce the rulings which they freely promulgate. So, the Equippers’ Church can decide for themselves whether they will use the same billboard again, or whether a different message might be a more persuasive evangelistic tool.

Bible, Critical Theory and Reception Seminar – Planned for Auckland, September 2012

Tags

2012, Auckland, Bible Critical Theory and Reception, Caroline Blyth, conference, New Zealand, Robert Myles

Caroline Blyth and Robert Myles

The Australasian sector of the global Bible, Critical Theory and Reception Seminar is coming to New Zealand in 2012.

Robert Myles and Caroline Blyth (University of Auckland both) have offered Auckland as the venue for BCT&R, which will probably be staged in August from 1-2 September 2012. More details to come when available.

The Bible, Critical Theory and Reception Seminar has been running in Australia and New Zealand for over a decade, and in the United Kingdom since 2011. The Seminar showcases the cutting edge in the study of Theory and Reception in relation to biblical studies. In a worthy attempt to short-circuit daytime and evening conference activities, the venue for each BCT&R Seminar is a local pub. Robert Myles, queer theorist and Jesus scholar, has promised to carefully investigate, over a course of some months, possible locations for the 2012 Australasian BCT&R Seminar. I put in my vote for upstairs at the Empire.

It’s sheep we’re up against

Tags

Housemartins, national anthem, New Zealand, up against sheep

I usually try to ignore the dull drone which is the sorry excuse for the New Zealand national anthem – on those occasions when it is forced on me in public. So I propose that they change it to something that would really get everyone on their feet! Something which really reflects something of the national psyche!!

This is why I am spearheading a campaign to change the New Zealand national anthem to “It’s Sheep We’re Up Against”. Much like our old national anthem, it was even written by some Pommy bastard (sombody in 1980s band, the Housemartins). And unlike the old national anthem, it is desirably self-deprecating and almost impossible to get jingoistic about (which, from my decidedly unnationalistic point of view, are ideal qualities for a national anthem if we must have one).

Yet, the chorus-line somehow captures what it is to be from these tropical South Pacific isles (and more so if you’ve ever been a farmboy in Southland, according to the best estimates).

So join the Campaign to change NZ National Anthem to “It’s Sheep We’re Up Against” Facebook Group, and make a real difference to the world you live in and to the lives of sheep everywhere.

Indeed, it’s sheep we’re up against. Take it away, fatboy…

Theologian Richard Dawkins in New Zealand for 2010 International Arts Festival

Tags

International Arts Festival, New Zealand, Richard Dawkins

Ok, I was just playing with the ‘theologian’ title there. But in recent years, Richard Dawkins has certainly been a big bad kitty running amok in the theological rooster coop. So he may be more deserving of the title than the dull defenders of dogma.

The news is that Richard Dawkins will be winging his way to Wellington, New Zealand for the Writers & Readers Week (9-14 March 2010) which forms a part of the 2010 New Zealand International Arts Festival.

7.00pm to 8.30pm
Saturday 13 March 2010
Fisher & Paykel Appliances Auditorium, The University of Auckland Business School

Dawkins’ most recent book, The Greatest Show on Earth, marks a return to his own field of evolution. So his talk in Wellington could be expected to concentrate on that topic.

“Richard Dawkins will present evidence for his argument that evolution is an incontrovertible fact. In his new book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, the renowned evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist takes on creationists, including followers of “intelligent design” and all those who question evolution through natural selection.

Richard Dawkins will be introduced by Brian Boyd, The University of Auckland’s Distinguished Professor of English. He teaches a course in Literature and Science that includes Richard Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker.”

The Antichrist Revealed! John Key has been Prophesised in the Word of God!!

Tags

Antichrist, Barack Obama, Chinese, David Letterman, End Times, John Key, Merchant Bankers, National Party, New Zealand, Prophesisation

The Word of God, the Bible, provides many descriptions of the Antichrist. The Bible tells us that, in the End Times, the Antichrist will ascend to dominion over the coming New World Order. He will then begin his reign of terror, in which he will persecute the Church of the Saints. 

It has become clear to some of us in recent months that this person has now revealed himself. So he must now be named and, although we believe he will do all in his power to suppress or discredit this information, we must bear a stong witness.

The Antichrist is John Key, Prime Minister of New Zealand. The Scriptures are clear. He who has ears, let him hear!

The Bible’s description of the Antichrist are in agreement with the facts of John Key’s life – on every point! This cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence!!

See for yourself:

1. It is prophesised: He will be a little man, but grow exceedingly great toward the south, east, and the beautiful land (Daniel 8:9-12).

John Key stands at only a little over five-and-a-half feet. After being born in Auckland, he moved to the South Island as a project manager at Christchurch-based clothing manufacturer Lane Walker Rudkin, before moving to the East as head of Merill Lynch’s Asian foreign exchange in Singapore. He has now become Prime Minister of Godzone, the beautiful country, New Zealand.

2. It is prophesised: He will speak arrogant words (Daniel 7.11).

When actress Keisha Castle-Hughes campaigned against global warming, John Key arrogantly dismissed her with the following words of harsh (and satanic) invective, “My advice to Keisha is this: Stick to acting.” In addition, as a sign of his march towards absolute dictatorship, John Key now refuses to speak with the media. Instead, he tells them, in what was hip late-1990s teenage slang, to “speak to the hand.” Oh, the arrogance!

3. It is prophesised: He will become very strong… but not by his own power… in his quick rise to fame (Daniel 8.24).

Barack Obama, John Key - A Secret Covenant Between Muslims and Jews? Note the unidentified man in foreign-looking hat in foreground.

Although he was only made leader of the opposition in November 2006, he rose to become leader of the powerful South Pacific nation of New Zealand just under two years later – backed by the shadowy organisation known as The National Party. On 25 July 2008, Key was added to the New Zealand National Business Review (NBR) Rich List, with an estimated wealth of NZ$50 million. John Key has become so famous that he now appears on the Late Show with David Letterman. Barack Obama has also appeared on Letterman.

4. It is prophesised: He will be blasphemous, and speak against God and his Word (Revelation 13:6).

John Key opposed the Biblical right to smack children, instead throwing his support behind the ‘Whore of Babylon,’ Sue Bradford. Sometimes when he speaks, the words are so unintelligible that he could well be speaking the most blatant and vile blasphemies against Jesus, and nobody would ever know. Except Jesus, who knows everything.

5. It is prophesised: The “merchants of the earth” will grow rich by supporting the New World Order (Revelation 18:3).

John Key was a Merchant Banker, who grew rich by playing with Kings and Rulers. But he has never revealed the exact means by which he amassed his curious wealth.

6. It is prophesised: His number will be 666 (Revelation 13:18).

John Key joined the National Party in 1998. The number 1998 is exactly 3 times 666.

7. It is prophesised: He will be a king ‘different’ from those who preceded him (Daniel 7.24).

The election campaign portrayed John Key as ‘different’ from your average politician, more an average man in the street. Sure, a man in the street with $50m in his back pocket, but it was a very average $50m.

8. It is prophesised: He will be called the Messiah (Matthew 24:5).

John Key supporter with John Key himself. John Key has cunningly arranged a picture of himself with the messianic image of a cross over his left shoulder.

To be heralded as ‘King of the Jews,’ the Messiah must have Jewish descent. John Key is descended from Jews! John Key is also followed everywhere he goes by sect members wearing cultish blue garb, proclaiming their adherence.

9. It is prophesised: He will be miraculously healed, the whole world astonished (Revelation 13:3).

In January 2009 Key slipped on some stairs at a Chinese New Year celebration, breaking his right arm in two places. This has since healed, miraculously, as noted by The Chinese Community. There are more than 1 billion Chinese on the planet today, most of them pagans. In addition, 2009 is the year of the ox in this pagan (and so demonic) system of thought. The ox is a horned creature. In Daniel 7:7, the Antichrist is portrayed as a horned creature.

10. It is prophesised: A false prophet will arise to be his right-hand man, causing all to take a mark, erecting a “living image of him” (Revelation 13.12-15).

John Key’s office has erected a website with his own “video journals” – displaying a “living image of him”. This would not have been possible before the arrival of the internet. The Bible knew about the internet, proving it was inspired by God!

All of this has been fulfilled to the letter. The odds of this are, approximately 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!

The conclusion is clear: John Key is the Antichrist.
You have been warned.

Cinema as Exorcism (One): The Case of (White) Australia

Tags

Australia, exorcism, Film, ghosts, History, New Zealand

From The Proposition (2006)

Inspired by two very good Australian films that screened down here at the International Film Festival, this is the first of what will (hopefully) be a series of posts dealing with film and various aspects of spectrality (and thanks to Deane for this last word).

These two very different films hammer home something that has been increasingly clear in the past few years: Australia, as a nation, is attempting through the cinema to shed the shackles of its national ghosts, or at least bring these spectres into the full, harsh light of day.  This is more than simple katharsis, it seems, bridging over into some more elemental; expiation maybe, even exorcism.  Australia – or at least Australian art, as the Australian government seems to be committed to continuing its long history of criminal behaviour – is engaged in a collective exorcism.  This is true, I suppose, of only those people who make these films or the people who choose to see them instead of Transformers. Perhaps this needs a further clarification, as this exorcism is largely confined to the ghosts of Australia’s European past.  The long plight of the Aboriginal peoples is still largely consigned to the darkness, or is subject to well-meaning but ultimately hollow official attempts at apology.  Something like Philip Noyce’s film Rabbit-Proof Fence, for all its striving nobility, simply doesn’t pack the emotional punch and the raw sense of wrongness that characterises the film-as-exorcism.

Jonathan auf der Heide’s remarkable debut Van Diemen’s Land recounts the story – such as it is – of eight convicts who escaped from the brutal penal colony at Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania in 1822.  Of these eight men, only one, an Irish thief named Alexander Pearce, would be found a number of weeks later, claiming to have killed and eaten a number of his fellow prisoners to survive.  The authorities were loath to believe Pearce, choosing to believe instead that Pearce was covering for his friends still at large.  It muddied the water considerably when Pearce escaped again a few years later and was found with human flesh in his pockets, despite the fact that he still had other things to eat.  He was hanged.  Almost two hundred years later, the filmmakers take Pearce at his word, taking us with the group as they are slowly whittled down by hunger, by malice, and by the sheer fact that they were all city-dwellers in the wilds of an unforgiving, uncaring island.  Eschewing the temptation to hammer the scant source material into a standard narrative form, the film instead evokes something of the experience of the men involved: the days bleed into another endlessly; the men themselves remain largely indistinguishable; the world is reduced eventually to an endless tract of damp forest; the bursts of violence are sudden, messy, and uncomfortably brutal.  It is an unsettling vision of the world, made all the more alien by Pearce’s Gaelic voiceover.  This is harsh, essential humanity at its very worst, the long, sad plight of imperfect men placed into an inhuman situation by circumstance and by the ambitions of others.  This is, the film makes very explicit, what made Australia, and by extension the whole of the British Empire; it was built on the suffering of untold hundreds of men like Pearce, sent to the ends of the Earth for the heinous crime of stealing six pairs of shoes.  Pearce is neither villain nor hero.  In the film, he simply is, and the film confronts the audience with his image, his voice, and his ghost, perhaps hoping that it will simply fade away now that its eternal bloodlust has been dramatised and made clear for all to see.

The other film that leads me in this direction is Robert Connolly’s Balibo, based again on historical incident and on the lives of real people.  The film tells of six Australian journalists (one of whom was a New Zealander) on the ground during the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor.  The film is structured almost as a mystery, following the journey of Roger East, played as both a lion in winter and as a faded revolutionary by a superb Anthony LaPaglia, as he follows the trail of five younger colleagues, who witnessed the early days of the invasion.  In stunningly recreated period detail, we see these hapless young men struggle to capture evidence that would prove to the world that Indonesia was ramping up an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that had only recently gained its freedom from Portugal.  They paid for this dream with their lives, and the film spares us very little of their terror and the ignominy of their final moments in a deserted cinder-block house.  The film is as much about Australia turning a blind eye to the invasion (in which as many as 183,000 people were killed) as it is about the invasion itself. At the end of Balibo, East is captured when the invasion begins in earnest.  He chants a desperate mantra – ‘I’m an Australian, I’m an Australian’ – trying to save himself from execution.  He fails and is gunned down unceremoniously.  He fails also to convince the audience that his nationality can (and should) save him, and Connolly leaves little doubt that some of the responsibility for the invasion should be laid at the feet of Australia and its opportunistic foreign policy.  The final images, triumphant archival footage from East Timor’s eventual independence from Indonesia in 1999, do little to erase the feeling that this film, like Van Diemen’s Land, is grappling with the ghosts of colonial guilt and with Australia’s uneasy relationship with its past.  The film opens with a title card that is rare in that it is so unequivocal: ‘This is a true story’.  Not ‘Based on true events’ or ‘Inspired by actual events’, but a blunt assertion of historical truth, making this even more of a punch to the gut, even purer an act of exorcism.

Tracing this trend a few years into the past, John Hillcoat’s painfully brilliant Aussie Western The Proposition, released in 2006, is perhaps the paradigmatic case of this kind of filmmaking.  Less an Unforgiven-like deconstruction of the tropes of the genre, Hillcoat’s film is more of an evisceration of every shred of dignity from the frontier.  With a script by Bad Seed singer Nick Cave (who provides the score along with Warren Ellis, the violinist from Dirty Three), the film mines an almost biblical vein of filth and violence on the borderlands of nineteenth century British civility.  The film closes on an image of two bearded, filthy Irish immigrants sitting in the sands just outside a displaced, genteel English house at the edge of the Outback, staring out into the future.  The psychotic Arthur Burns (played with a sociopathic refinement by Danny Huston) is dying slowly, facing the endless nothingness.  Arthur asks his younger brother Charlie (played by a gauntly intense Guy Pearce) the question that has plagued every modern person since Hamlet: ‘What are you going to do now?’  Charlie, having killed Arthur in a futile bid to save the life of their angelic younger brother, is left to face the future forever trapped between savagery and civilisation.  That the brothers end the film staring away from the English house and into the wilds speaks of a profound emptiness and a deep unease at the core of Australia’s sense of its own European history.   Incidentally, walking out of the theatre after seeing The Proposition, I overheard the best impromptu film review ever: a young woman behind me turned to her friend and said in a shaky voice, ‘I thought I was going to vomit the whole time that was playing’.  This is elemental, haunted, and resonant filmmaking.  This is expiation.

Australia’s spiritual and geographic neighbour New Zealand really hasn’t delved into its own past in quite this fashion – save for a few brilliant exceptions like Geoff Murphy’s Utu (1983) – and I suspect New Zealand’s puritan underbelly and its continued reverence for both the British Empire and for its own (small) part in that Empire will prevent this from happening.  While there are kiwi films that are willing to admit that New Zealand society is underpinned by an almost impenetrable darkness – see Brad McGann’s 2004 In My Father’s Den for an outstanding example of this – and even films that dramatise and make visible this dark core – see Robert Sarkies’ 2006 Out of the Blue, arguably the best film ever made in this country – there is little evidence that the wholesale historical exorcism that we see in Australian film is anywhere close to the surface.

This is a shame; we need to do this, and soon.

The only thing perhaps that we can change is the past and we do it all the time.

Ninian Smart