This startling development came in a Maxim Institute media release issued yesterday. In a somewhat patronising manner, the Institute's Managing Director, Greg Fleming, said that MPs were confused about the Civil Union Bill and then said that all the claims of its proponents can be dealt with in the Relationships Bill.

The Maxim Institute is a Christian Fundamentalist pressure group with established links to Fundamentalist groups in the USA. Oddly, it has the status of an educational charity, which gives it tax benefits, despite its obviously political nature. It has been the main organiser of opposition to the Civil Unions legislation.

Paul Litterick, Secretary of the NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists, was surprised that the Maxim Institute should see the value of the Relationships Bill at this late stage: "Throughout the debate on Civil Unions, Maxim have opposed the Relationships Bill as much as its companion Civil Unions Bill. They went as far as to present a lengthy written submission to the Select Committee, opposing both bills, along with a supplementary submission which aimed to show that the Relationships Bill was unnecessary. Now they are saying that the Civil Unions Bill is unnecessary because the Relationships Bill will meet all the needs of its supporters".

The Maxim media release (which is printed in full below, for the benefit of sceptics) also repeats Maxim's support for Richard Worth's failed attempt to amend the Civil Unions Bill to extend its benefits to people who are not in intimate relationships, a baffling approach to legislation they oppose. Mr Litterick added, "Obviously they do not quite understand the Civil Unions Bill yet, but there is still time for further developments in their thinking before tomorrow's vote. For a group which describes itself as a 'Social Policy Think Tank', Maxim seems very confused about this legislation. Perhaps they could talk to the MPs who are opposing both bills about their new position."

This change in Maxim's thinking comes at an opportune time, since Maxim is currently promoting Compass 2005, a 'biblically based' training course for young people 'who want to expand their understanding of contemporary issues and worldviews', according to Maxim's promotional web site. The course is being organised by Maxim on behalf of the American fundamentalist group, Summit Ministries. Lecturers will include several well-known American fundamentalists, as well as a representative of Answers in Genesis, the Creationist group which argues against Evolutionary Science and promotes the belief that the universe was created in seven days less than ten thousand years ago.

Paul Litterick thinks this will be a good opportunity for Maxim to promote its support of the Relationships bill to lecturers and students alike: "It would make a useful contribution to their worldviews."

The Maxim Media Release follows:

Civil Unions confusion reigns
Wednesday, 8 December 2004, 4:39 pm
Press Release: Maxim Institute
08 December 2004

Civil Unions confusion reigns

Debate on the final stages of the Civil Union Bill has revealed that most MPs supporting it have either failed to realise or admit that this is same-sex marriage, says Maxim Institute, Managing Director Greg Fleming.

"Deceptive government propaganda has also misled Parliament and the public as to what the Bill actually does. The Civil Union Bill does not provide same-sex or de facto couples with any rights," says Mr Fleming.

"MPs will not even know what the Civil Union Bill will actually do until the Relationships Bill is reported back to Parliament."

Ironically the Civil Relationships Bill amendment proposed by Richard Worth would have provided more tangible benefits for people than Civil Unions. Voting down this alternative confirmed the high level of confusion over the effects of the respective Bills..

Mr Fleming says, "It is not the role of the state to pass laws to simply recognise 'love and commitment'. Parliament does not need to legislate for same-sex couples to have a ceremony. Plainly this is all about the state endorsement of same-sex unions."

"If MPs are confused about this then they should look for another job," says Greg Fleming.

"All of the claims and demands of the proponents can be dealt with in the companion Relationships Bill - the Civil Union Bill is unnecessary."

The NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists is urging the Government to tell the Pope to stay out of New Zealand's business.

This follows a statement made by the Pope on Monday that New Zealand's planned Civil Unions legislation "violated God's plan for humanity". The Pope was meeting a delegation of New Zealand Catholic Bishops. The delegation was led by Cardinal Thomas Williams, who recently fretted about "the spiritual bankruptcy of liberalism".

Paul Litterick, Secretary of the NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists, noted that the Pope's commitment to marriage was such that he prohibited any of his nuns, monks and clergy from entering into it. Likewise the Pope's support of the family was shown by the way his church had implemented a deliberate policy of concealing numerous cases of sexual abuse committed by members of his clergy. "God's plan for humanity" also seems to involve Catholic authorities in developing countries denying people access to contraception, thereby creating unwanted pregnancies and spreading AIDS.

Mr Litterick went on to note that the Pope recently lectured the Canadian Government about its plans for formalising same sex unions. "Canada dismissed the Pope's comments as an intrusion in Canadian politics. Our Government should do the same."

"We should tell the Pope to get over it."

We sent the following message to all publications listed on the Maxim Institute's letter Wizard.

This letter has been sent to you using the Maxim Institute's letter writing wizard: http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/

Your publication is one of many that can be accessed from this page.

We wouldn't normally use this sort of tool, particularly one provided by the Maxim Institute. However, we are sending this letter to demonstrate how Maxim manipulates the letter writing process.

Newspapers and magazines provide space for readers to express their opinions. This is an essential and long-established aspect of free speech, giving readers the opportunity to comment on issues in the news. Maxim has exploited this opportunity by providing its supporters with the means to send letters to many publications at once. With this tool, Maxim can give the impression that its views are more representative of New Zealanders than they are in fact.

According to research done by Matt Nippert of the Fighting Talk Web Blog (http://fightingtalk.blogspot.com/2004_04_11_fightingtalk_archive.html#108206335087034284) one Maxim supporter, Stephen D. Taylor of Onehunga "has had 40 of his letters published 68 times in the last 18 months... Mr Taylor, of Auckland, has been published in the Timaru Herald 27 times, and 17 in the Waikato Times. Some of these letters have been published in more than one publication."

Mr Taylor admitted that he was a supporter of Maxim and used their letter writing wizard in an interview with Critic, quoted by Russell Brown in his Public Address blog: http://publicaddress.net/default,1163.sm#post1163

Stephen D Taylor was the author of a letter published in the NZ Herald of 14th April which said that Tim Barnett MP would have to be "put down".

Nippert comments: "Editors on the letters pages take note: you're being taken for a ride. Taylor has gotten over 13,000 words of moralising rhetoric into newspapers around the country (not counting smaller community newspapers who, if anything, are more likely to print spammed mail), probably at the expense of people expressing genuine, local concerns."

As a national organisation with stated objectives, we would never use these techniques to propagate our views. We send letters and comments to publications throughout the country and always clearly state that we are the author. We write only to publications which we read and usually in response to specific issues raised in a publication.

Unlike Maxim, we are a membership organisation with ethical standards. Our association has members throughout the country and often they write to their local newspapers on their own behalf. We do not organise letter-writing campaigns or send letters under any false pretences. We do not provide any tools for spamming publications. To use any of these techniques would be a deception and an insult to you and your readers.

Maxim, on the other hand, is a pressure group funded by a small number of wealthy supporters, which appears to have few scruples in advancing its interests. Maxim provides its supporters with material to support its positions, statistics that are often politically biased and unreliable. For example, Craig Young of GayNZ has shown that much of the evidence presented by Maxim to the select committee on the Care of Children Bill came from a researcher who has been expelled from professional bodies for fabricating data (http://www.gaynz.com/political/Maxim.asp).

We urge you, in the interests of freedom of speech, to reject letters that have been sent from outside your readership area and which support Maxim's views and use questionable data. With your support this despicable and underhand practice can be stopped.

Readers may not have had an opportunity to read the lengthy SPCS media release "Response To Chief Censor Bill Hastings Attack On "The Passion" Re-Rating" released Today, 7th April. Here is a summary:

Violence in films that promote Christianity = Good Violence.

Violence in all other films = Bad Violence.

Sex = Bad.

Good Violence should be shown to everyone, including children.

Bad Violence should not be shown to anybody, including grown-ups.

Sex is disgusting.

We hope this is helpful.

Anti-abortion activists should apologise after the release of a study that shows there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.

For many years, anti-abortion activists have been intimidating women by saying that having an abortion increases the likelihood of contracting breast cancer, citing a few studies made in the early 1990s. The new research, conducted by researchers at Oxford University and published in The Lancet, has analysed the data used in earlier studies and finds that the link between abortion and breast cancer was based on unreliable data and poor research. "The totality of the worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ended by induced abortion do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer," said Professor Valerie Beral, an epidemiologist who was one of the study's authors.

The results of the earlier studies have always been disputed and did not gain acceptance by scientists, but were seized upon by anti-abortion religious groups, both overseas and in New Zealand. Often the flawed research was presented in health advice for pregnant women, to dissuade them from the option of abortion with the fear of a fatal illness. It has also been used by the Maxim Institute in an attempt to influence legislation.

New Zealand groups which have used this flawed data include:

The Maxim Institute, in a submission to parliament on the Care of Children Bill: http://www.maxim.org.nz/submissions/care_of_children_oralsubm.rtf

New Zealand Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child - in advertisements published in major daily newspapers in 2002, which were the subject of a successful complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority: http://www.asa.co.nz/decisions/dec02383.htm

Students Organised to Uphold Life, on its website: http://www.soul.org.nz/pages/resources/breast_cancer.htm

The NZ branch of Promise Keepers, a Fundamentalist Men's group: http://www.promisekeepers.org.nz/imrefpages/0304IM.htm

publications available from Family Life International: http://www.fli.org.nz/publications.asp

The data was also used in the March 2003 issue of Investigate magazine: http://www.investigatemagazine.com/mar3abrt.htm

We think it is time for these activists to retract the false information they have used and to apologise to the women they have misinformed and intimidated.

The New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists is the country's oldest and largest organisation representing people without religious beliefs. Its principal objectives are to advocate a rational, humane and secular view of life without reference to supernatural agencies and which is compatible with scientific method; to promote a tolerant, responsible and open society; to encourage open-minded enquiry into matters relevant to human co-existence and well-being.

Schools are for education, not religion: providing places of worship is not a school's responsibility.

The education budget should be spent on education, not on building places of worship.

The public school system was designed to be secular: students should leave their religious differences at the school gate.

Religions are divisive and religious differences can cause tensions among students.

Muslim students in other schools will have good reason to demand similar facilities.

Everyone will want one: students from other religions could demand their own places of worship at schools.

The whole school should benefit from the school's facilities, not a minority: the Muslim students at Hagley are less than 10% of the school roll.

We should not assume that people from overseas want to practice the religious traditions of their home countries in New Zealand.

Like most religions, Islam discriminates against women and girls, which is not a good model for school life.

Religion is a private matter: places of worship should be financed by their adherents on their own property.

Allowing religions to assume official status will exacerbate racial differences.

The New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists is the country's oldest and largest organisation representing people without religious beliefs. Its principal objectives are to advocate a rational, humane and secular view of life without reference to supernatural agencies and which is compatible with scientific method; to promote a tolerant, responsible and open society; to encourage open-minded enquiry into matters relevant to human co-existence and well-being.

The Education Network Reviews currently being carried out by the Ministry of Education will result in the closure of many public schools, but will not affect state-funded religious schools. These "Integrated Schools", which are run by religious bodies but financed by the taxpayer, will continue to enjoy an unfair advantage while the nation's public schools suffer cutbacks and closures. The children of the religious and the rich enjoy a privileged education at public expense, while opportunities for most students are reduced. The NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists believes this is a national scandal and is urging the Education Minister to merge or close Integrated Schools before allowing any public school to close.

Integrated schools are funded by the Ministry of Education, just as public schools are, but they enjoy several advantages. An integrated school has all its costs paid by the Ministry of Education, but can also charge substantial fees to finance capital projects, such as new facilities. If these improvements bring in more students and require more teaching staff, the Ministry is obliged to pay for them, as well as paying maintenance costs. The school, despite receiving large amounts of the public's money, can refuse any student whose parents do not hold the right religious opinions. The Education Minister, despite providing all this funding, has no control over the school and no power to close it or to merge it with any other school. Integrated schools in effect are taxpayer-funded private religious schools.

The Integrated Schools system was created in 1974 after lobbying by Catholic authorities, and its principle purpose was to provide state support for Catholic schools. The system has been remarkably successful in this respect. It has created a network of wealthy, well-resourced schools that provide a Catholic education for the children of parents who meet the religious requirements and can afford to pay the fees. The Anglican and Presbyterian churches run similar schools. These institutions are indistinguishable from private schools, except the massive state subsidies they enjoy mean they can charge considerably lower fees.

There are also schools run by various Christian Fundamentalist churches and other organisations that have the status of integrated schools. Their purpose is not education but indoctrination. Their world-view is sectarian and intolerant. Many do not follow the National Curriculum but use instruction programmes designed to train students in dogma. Most New Zealanders would be surprised to know that there are publicly funded schools that teach, in Science classes, that the World was created in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago.

Our public school system provides a quality education, regardless of income or religious prejudice. Under the current review process, public schools will be closed while integrated schools are exempt from scrutiny. The Ministry of Education is aware of this issue and has published a discussion document on the subject. The NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists believes the Education Act should be amended to include integrated schools in Network Reviews and to allow the Education Minister to close them or merge them with public schools. In time, we hope all integrated schools will be merged into the public school system, where children can receive an education free of charge and free of dogma.

The New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists supports Matt Robson's attempt to replace the Parliamentary prayer with a statement reflecting New Zealand's secular state.

The prayer read in Parliament is out-dated and offensive to the many people in New Zealand who do not hold religious beliefs. The prayer asks for guidance from God in conducting the affairs of the House and the country, to glorify his name and maintain "true religion". This prayer does not reflect the nature of New Zealand. Ours is a country with a large proportion of non-believers: in the 2001 Census, over a million respondents stated they had no religion, the largest single group in the Census results. According to comparative surveys of opinion polls and census results, New Zealand is one of the most atheistic countries worldwide.

The prayer is also inappropriate because New Zealand is a secular state, where government, administration and law are carried out without reference to religious authority. Our institutions manage to do their work without guidance from any god.

Since the prayer was initiated in 1854, many rationalists and free-thinkers have served in Parliament, including John Balance, Robert Stout, Michael Joseph Savage and John A Lee, who was a long-standing member of the Auckland Rationalist Association. New Zealand has a strong tradition of rationalism in Parliament and the country, which continues today. Free-thinkers in Parliament should not be obliged to assent to a prayer which speaks only for a religious minority. The aims of Parliament should be stated in a form which all members can affirm, without reference to any religious belief.

September 11 2001 was not the first time in the year we had been given graphic demonstrations of the power of faith. In New Zealand we had already seen Korean evangelicals presume to bring a corpse back to life; a woman who died during one of their own exorcisms.
Click here to read on...

The Fundy Post provides a review of the strange outpourings of New Zealand's various religious fundamentalists. Publishing of the Fundy Post is currently on hold.

Previous issues of the Fundy Post may be viewed here.