Time to Broadcast Jerry's Speech

I watched the Queen's speech of course. Mostly to see if it would differ from what she had said in the past. Of course it didn't. It was the same old speech she always gives with the same old themes of family, service, armed forces and tragedy making us all stronger. What was interesting this year I thought was that she focused even more on Jesus Christ. It was a very religious speech this year I thought. My grandmother who is a few years older than the Queen (and a big supporter) surmised that the Queen was feeling her age and no doubt becoming more religious as she approached her nineties. I thought it was a reasonable explanation for the shift. A far more Christian message than usual. And the Maori King broadcast a message for the first time this year. That was an interesting development.            

Putting aside the number of people who watched the broadcast I am interested to know your justifications for having a church leader as Head of State?  Its a pretty simple question. If you can't answer it then I assume there is no real answer. We say its contradictory and inequitable and needs to change. Your response....?

Your dedication to logic is admirable. However I am not sure you are actually very good at it. I think its pretty clear that you can't give us any reasons why having a religious leader as Head of State is consistent with secular values. So let's take it as a given that it isn't consistent and that having a non-religious address from a non-religious Head of State on a non-religious holiday makes more sense and is more consistent with fairness and equity in our democracy. You don't refute that so I will assume you are in full agreement with us on it.

To your other point, and just to explain, a press release is never a full and final public statement. It is an initial statement designed to illicit further conversation and interest. We send them to the media and we publish them online in the interests of openness and so people can see what we are saying. Once we talk to the media we expand on our original points according to what they want to talk about. Any time we mention a secular  society in a public statement it is a reference to the Queen being a religious leader.  Our argument (and its not explicit in the Press release) is that New Zealanders are less and less interested in religion traditions and the Queen's speech at Christmas and we presented evidence to show that. It was a Reader's Digest poll taken from a representative sample of New Zealanders. The Queen's speech was last on the list of what is Hot. First on the list for what is Not. We are saying that religious traditions at Christmas (like listening to a religious message from a religious leader) are less important to New Zealanders than they once were. Given, that we are supposed to be a secular country and that our Secular Governor-General (who is a de facto Head of State) now broadcasts a New Year's message it would be better to not bother with the Queen's speech and just broadcast the Governor-General's one instead. Giving free air time to a religious sermon is not acceptable and the Queen is abusing her political position by using her speech as a leader to push her Anglican beliefs.
 .   

As Head of State she is expected to be impartial in matters of religion because New Zealand is a diverse country with diverse beliefs including a large % who are not religious. That is the problem. She is not impartial and actively uses her address as Head of State to preach about her beliefs.  There is a clear conflict between her role as Head of State and her position as Head of the Anglican Church. She believes that God and Jesus as Christ [King] are factual certainties when of course they are not. She negates all other religious traditions. She could give her address on Waitangi Day or on her birthday or at any other time but she has chosen to use Christmas to preach to people and promote herself and her family. The address is a PR exercise and always has been.
The Governor-General does not mention religion at all as he and his office understand that it would be inappropriate and unacceptable. 
New Zealand in principle is a secular country and but there are numerous areas where it is deficient in upholding the principle. The Queen is one of the most obvious examples but it is very easy to fix. When we become a republic we will have an elected non religious and New Zealand Head of State. Solving three problems all at once.
Christmas and Easter (which is also a Jewish festival) are a mix of Christian and Pagan traditions and are seasonal holidays that are so ingrained in cultural life that it would be difficult to change them. Their meaning can change, however, and that is what is happening (Less religious and more seasonal) The Monarch as official Head of a Christian Church is a fact that cannot change or shift. We are not campaigning for a secular country. That is for other people to address if they want to. There is no inconsistency in our approach.
We are campaigning for a secular and elected Head of State. The Monarchy have to go so we can make our constitution fairer and more effective. Quite simple really. There is a problem and an obvious solution.
 

An oath by definition does not need to be religious. In a properly secular state there is no reason for any official oaths to include any religious phrase. There is no actual reason why we have two versions and Oaths and an Affirmation. It is inefficient and we could just have non-religious Oaths. That is partly why the Oaths Modernisation Bill happened. We, however, did not make a submission on the issue of the phrase 'so help me God' in the oaths as it is not within our purview. Our submission argued only against ever swearing allegiance to the British Monarch. See our page on Oaths. The bill was withdrawn by the government in 2010 as they did not see it as a priority (and please don't get sidetracked on that issue).
As to the issue of secularity.  I am not sure how I can explain to you in a logical way that you will understand as I have already tried that and I get the feeling you have trouble with simple logic Its pretty straightforward:
We want our New Zealand as Head of State. One of the reasons we want a New Zealander as Head of State is because it is not appropriate to have the Head of any Church in that position. The issue of secularity is a larger issue. We restrict ourselves to that area of the secularity debate that relates to the Head of State.  This is not in any way contradictory. To argue that it is, or imply that if we support one aspect of secularity we should support them all is flawed logic.
The Queen is both a religious leader and head of state because aspects of our constitution are woefully out of date. Unfortunately the Monarchy and the Church are intricately linked. We inherited an antiquated system.
To argue that the Governor-General swearing an Oath to God means God is fundamental to an office is very weak reasoning. The phrase is not considered important or integral to the legal standing of the oath. If a Governor-General announced they were an atheist no one would care. It would not affect the oath at all. 
Now, back to my main question. Do you think its fair that one Church leader and one church should be allowed to dominate and control the office of Head of State? Are you an Anglican yourself? I would be interested to know whether you support the Queen as Head of State in part because you like the fact that Anglicanism has special privileges? If you are from another domination or religion or a non-believer I am interested to know why you support that power remaining in the hands of the Anglican hierarchy.

Fair enough. I agree that to have the Head of state truly secular would mean that they would have to be sworn in without officially sanctioned reference to God.That to me (my personal view) seems a very easy thing to do. Belief in God is not a requirement of any public office and there is no link between religious belief and ethical behavior. Swearing to 'God' is only relevant to people who believe in the monotheistic tradition. For anyone else it is redundant. Better to have an oath that all people swear (as a legal requirement) regardless of their beliefs.

I would disagree that the Head of State has any actual power in terms of political decision making but what they do have is cultural power. If they speak people listen. If they identify as the patron of any group that group receives benefits. It may not affect your life but it affects us all that leaders in the Anglican Church have privileged access to our Head of State. It also affects the wider society when one group becomes a de facto state religion and when the values and cultural values of the British Class system is revered at the expense of others.  I don't hear other Christian denominations complaining about the Queen as Head of the Anglican Church but then they may not be saying anything publicly. What I do hear is non-believers (who number approx 38% with 16% very certain) resenting it. However it doesn't matter if only 5% of people are discriminated against. We have a Bill of Rights that says no discrimination.  Even one person being denied a chance to choose the Head of State is anti-democratic. 4.4 million being denied is a disgrace. I cannot accept the argument of tradition. Just because discrimination is traditional or institutionalised does not mean it is acceptable (discrimination and privilege has always used that as an excuse) In fact surely the exact opposite. To officially condone discrimination is to undermine the validity of legal and political power.To allow the Monarchy to discriminate and perpetuate those ideals undermine any attempt to encourage tolerance and equality.