by Takoda Ackerley
Regarding the Maxim Institute. In his opinion piece “Un-civil religion at the end of the rainbow”, Josiah takes a concerning stance regarding civil protest and the constitution of secular civil life. Brown, in his discussion of the recent events that brought the hate of Destiny Church to our town, argues that the painting over of the rainbow crosswalk was not a “hate crime” — arguing that it was comparable to when paint was thrown over the Treaty display at Te Papa.
Josiah, in this inadequate display of argumentative logic, creates a false equivalency which ignores the cause of each act of protest.
One set of actions was motivated by religious and social intolerance towards the LGBTQIA+ community in Tairāwhiti; the other was motivated by a political and cultural injustice stemming from the effects of colonisation. Some may argue against this, but it does not change the fact that these two events are not the same.
Josiah poses the question, “Should the government in a modern, secular society take or promote what are essentially religious positions on moral issues where different communities within that society disagree?” To answer his own question, he argues that the definition of religion is an “ethical stance grounded in a particular set of values and vision of the good”.
In Anthropology of Religion, Magic and Witchcraft, a definition of religion is “The realm of culture that concerns the sacred supernatural”. Oxford defines it as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially God or gods” — “ A particular system of faith and worship” — “a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion”.
Religion may be concerned with ethics and life, but to define it as such is a grossly misleading proposition. Josiah argues that the government should be neutral in these affairs, to “agree to disagree”. It is not, however, a reality.
The role of the state in any just society is to protect people.
On the one hand, you have people who commit acts of protest out of hate; on the other, you have people committing acts of protest to gain rights or protections historically denied to them, such as those only recently gained by the LGBTQIA+ community.
Josiah has a BA in history and communication. History is fraught with protest, and he should be able to clearly make that distinction.
Josiah Brown and the other members of the Maxim Institute exist to further a conservative view of social life. I am not averse to reading and accepting well-crafted research, but it seems prudent to examine the columns from the Maxim Institute with a grain of salt — especially when false equivalencies are created to further a particular social position.
Their research utilises language which hides many social leanings, but their columns indicate a clear right-wing bias. But that is what think tanks are for — furthering the social, economic, religious and political views of those who found, fund and run them.
I am unashamed to say that my particular beliefs are left wing, and I am aware of my own bias in these matters. But I am concerned when a think tank, whose views are expressed to shape a more conservative future, tries to shift political activism and religious hate into the same sphere of existence.
There is a clear distinction between hate and protest, and it is within the causes and values of those who do it. Josiah sought to cloud those distinctions, and it is a tactic often used by conservative groups to disenfranchise and disarm legitimate forms of protest and civil disobedience.
