The Letter

The Church and a Political/Secular Issue

Introduction

The relationship between the Church and politics has been a continuing topic of debate throughout history. While the influence of religious institutions on political matters can be profound, there are compelling reasons for the Church to avoid entangling itself in political controversies.

In this article, I will outline the reasons why this should be so, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the Church's spiritual integrity, fostering unity among believers, and ensuring that the primary mission of the Church remains untainted by the divisiveness of political disputes.

I shall then move to consider and analyse the open letter that was signed by 400 members of various Churches in New Zealand, opposing the Bill proposed by Act defining the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Even although the proposed Bill remains a mystery, nevertheless there is opposition to it. A rough idea of what may be contained in it has been made available and I shall briefly discuss what is broadly proposed.

I shall then conclude by suggesting that in fact the opposition of the various Church bodies in fact is an episode in a continuing struggle that was brought into sharp focus by the Enlightenment.

In this article I refer to “the Church”. That is a collective term and is designed to encompass all denominations of belief. Although it could extend to all religions in this case I use the term to refer to Christian denominations given that the 400 signatories to the open letter were members of various Christian denominations.

The Preservation of Spiritual Integrity

Focus on the Core Mission

The primary mission of the Church is to provide spiritual guidance, nurture faith, and offer solace to its followers. Engaging in political controversies can detract from this mission, shifting the focus from spiritual teachings to temporal matters.

The Church's role is to offer moral and ethical guidance based on religious doctrines, rather than becoming entangled in the complexities and biases inherent in political conflicts.

Maintaining Neutrality

The Church's credibility and moral authority are rooted in its perceived neutrality and impartiality. When the Church takes sides in political disputes, it risks alienating segments of its congregation who may hold differing views. This perceived partisanship can erode the trust and respect that the Church commands, diminishing its ability to effectively minister to its diverse flock. By remaining neutral, the Church can serve as a unifying force, promoting peace and understanding among its members.

Guarding Against Corruption

Politics is often associated with power struggles, corruption, and ethical compromises. When the Church becomes involved in political controversies, it can be drawn into these negative aspects, compromising its moral standing. The Church must guard against the temptation to wield political power for its own ends, as this can lead to a loss of integrity and a deviation from its spiritual purpose.

For example the rise of Liberation Theology, especially in Latin America, created serious problems within the Catholic Church. Liberation theology is a combination of Marxist philosophy with certain biblical motifs. It argues that we should reconstruct the whole of Christian theology by seeing it through the “axis of the oppressor and the oppressed.”

Liberation theology developed in the 1960s to argue for the liberation of various groups—primarily poor, black, women—from economic and political bondage. For these theologians, it is not enough to support the oppressed; one must be committed to social movements, even revolutions, dedicated to overturning the structures of society. For this purpose, liberation theologians adopt Marxism as an “analytical tool,” with which they make radical revisions to every traditional Christian doctrine.

As followers of liberation theology grew in numbers, the Vatican felt increasingly threatened by the movement’s connections to radical movements and leftist tendencies.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a part of the Vatican’s office, issued a number of critical instructions that questioned the movement’s Biblical usage and its emphasis on Marxist notions of class struggle.

Then Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger  (formerly Pope Benedict XVI) wrote that the purpose of the instruction is to alert religious figures and the faithful of “the deviations, and risks of deviation, damaging to the faith…brought about by certain forms of liberation theology which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought” (CDF Vatican Website). 

The Vatican felt that the connection between the movement and Marxism where incompatible with Catholic teachings.  Marx encourages class struggle and social disruption that conflicted with the traditional order and stability of the Church. The Vatican feared that these forms of social unrest and questioning would weaken the power and influence of the Church.

Fostering Unity Among Believers

Avoiding Division

Political controversies are inherently divisive, often pitting individuals and groups against one another. When the Church takes a stand on political issues, it risks creating divisions within its congregation. Believers who disagree with the Church's stance may feel marginalized or excluded, leading to fractures in the community. The Church's role should be to promote unity and harmony among its members, fostering an environment where all can worship together regardless of their political beliefs.

Encouraging Inclusivity

The Church is a place of refuge and acceptance for individuals from all walks of life. By avoiding political controversies, the Church can create a more inclusive environment where everyone feels welcome. This inclusivity is essential for building a strong, supportive community that reflects the diversity of the broader society. When the Church refrains from engaging in political disputes, it can focus on its mission of serving and uplifting all individuals, irrespective of their political affiliations.

Ensuring the Primary Mission Remains Intact

Emphasizing Spiritual Teachings

The Church's primary mission is to spread spiritual teachings and provide moral guidance based on religious principles. Political controversies can distract from this mission, leading the Church to prioritize temporal matters over spiritual growth. By steering clear of political disputes, the Church can ensure that its primary focus remains on nurturing the faith and moral development of its members.

Promoting Ethical Behaviour

While the Church should avoid political controversies, it can still play a crucial role in promoting ethical behaviour and social justice. By addressing moral and ethical issues from a spiritual perspective, the Church can influence positive change without becoming embroiled in political conflicts. This approach allows the Church to uphold its moral authority while remaining true to its spiritual mission.

The Role of the Church in Society

Advocating for Social Justice

The Church has a long history of advocating for social justice and the welfare of the marginalized. While it should avoid direct involvement in political controversies, it can still champion causes that align with its moral and ethical teachings. By advocating for social justice from a spiritual standpoint, the Church can inspire positive change without compromising its integrity.

Providing Moral Guidance

The Church's role in providing moral guidance is essential for shaping the values and behaviours of its members. By focusing on spiritual teachings and ethical principles, the Church can offer a moral compass that helps individuals navigate the complexities of modern life. This guidance is particularly important in times of social and political turmoil, as it provides a stable foundation for ethical decision-making.

Therefore the Church should avoid political controversies to preserve its spiritual integrity, foster unity among believers, and ensure that its primary mission remains untainted by the divisiveness of political disputes. By maintaining neutrality and focusing on its core mission, the Church can serve as a unifying force that promotes peace, understanding, and ethical behaviour.

The Church's role in advocating for social justice and providing moral guidance is crucial, but it should approach these issues from a spiritual perspective, avoiding direct involvement in political conflicts. In doing so, the Church can continue to fulfill its sacred mission of nurturing faith and promoting moral and ethical values in society.

The “Principles” of the Treaty

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 set up a Tribunal to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the Treaty and, for that purpose, to determine its meaning and effect and whether certain matters are inconsistent with those principles. The Tribunal could make recommendations only. There was no power of enforcement and it could not consider any claims arising before 1975.

In 1985 the Act was amended. The old Tribunal came to an end. Its membership was expanded and significantly its jurisdiction was extended to allow investigation of claims referring back to 1985.

The passage of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 created state owned enterprises to replace a number of government departments. This required the transfer of certain Crown assets to the enterprises including extensive land holdings.

The Act took Maori interests into account in that it made provision for lands that were the subject of a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal.

Significantly the Act provided “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”.

Thus we have at this stage two pieces of legislation that refer to the Principles of the Treaty but nowhere are those Principles recorded or set out.

The legislation did not refer to the “terms” of the Treaty or the “provisions” of the Treaty but to the principles of the Treaty. In a sense this recognizes that events – historical, social and demographic to mention but a few – had overtaken the precise wording of the Treaty which was an artefact. It was by way of the principles that new life would be breathed into the Treaty but those principles would be guidelines only and they would be identified and articulated by the Courts.

In the case of New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 it was argued that the Crown was obliged to act positively to protect the interests of Maori partners to the Treaty. This would require consultation concerning any action which might affect taonga.

The Court stated that it would be unlawful to establish a system to consider the transfer of assets or categories of assets where such a system was inconsisten with the principles of the Treaty.

The Court noted the term “the principles” of the Treaty rather than its terms. The use of that phrase 

"calls for an assessment of the relationship the parties hoped to create by and reflect in that document, and an inquiry into the benefits and obligations involved in applying its language in today's changed conditions and expectation in the light of that relationship."

Thus, rather than adopting an “originalist” or literal approach to the Treaty the Court was adopting a “living document” approach that would recognize societal changes.

The Court recognized the following principles:

Kawanatanga and tino rangatiratanga – the right of the Crown to govern and the right of Māori to continue to exercise self-determination,

On-going partnership with obligations to act reasonably and in good faith,

Duty to remedy past breaches,

Active protection.

In a subsequent case – New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General [2013] NZSC 6 the Supreme Court

"gave weight to the SOE case jurisprudence that vests the section 9 Treaty principles section as a paramount provision that contains a broad constitutional principle. The SOE case is “of great authority and importance to the law concerning the relationship between the Crown and Maori”

Glazebrook J writing extrajudicially described the case in the following terms

The Court of Appeal's decision in the Maori Council case has been viewed by New Zealand historians as one of the crucial measures that helped facilitate Maori development and identity through propelling extensive social and political change in New Zealand. It has been argued that the decision, which has been seen as giving the Treaty of Waitangi an explicit place in New Zealand jurisprudence for the first time, was one of the catalysts for the creation of a general acceptance that the state has a responsibility actively to fund the promotion of Maori language and culture and language.

Fundamentally, as was observed by Cooke P (as he then was) in the Lands case, ther relationship between Maori and the Crown is fiduciary in nature. It is that which underpins the obligation to act reasonably and in good faith. But there is no suggestion that there is a legal partnership. The relationship is governed by obligations to act reasonably and in good faith.

Richard Prebble, writing in the NZ Herald, makes the following observations:

I was the Minister of State Owned Enterprises when the Māori Council challenged the transfer of state trading departments into businesses. The court made no ruling, told us to sort it out, and observed that the Treaty relationship is like a partnership.

Partnership, like sovereignty, is a complex word. Webster’s dictionary gives three different meanings ranging from a legal partnership to, say, “scientists working in partnership with each other”.

This latter meaning is how the council and I interpreted the judge’s observation. The chairman of the Māori Council, Sir Graham Latimer, was my father’s friend. I was a teenage volunteer in Matiu Rata’s campaign office. In my lounge, no lawyers, we worked in partnership to find a solution. There was never any doubt about who was the minister.

Good governments work in partnership with the electorate. When we reformed the wharves, I invited all the parties to meet with me. In partnership, we worked through the issues. It was not co-government. As a minister of the Crown, the decisions were mine to be ratified by Parliament.

Those examples show how the relationship was made to work.

The ACT party now proposes to introduce a Bill that will define the mysterious and as yet unarticulated principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is to this proposal, which has not yet been made very clear that has been the subject of an open letter to Members of Parliament and signed by 400 members of various denominations. This is a clear example of the Church becoming involved in a political matter.

The Open Letter

I shall now proceed to consider the letter which I reproduce below. My comments and remarks are in italics.

Open letter from Christian leaders to all Members of Parliament

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou katoa

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:9)

Lord, who may dwell in your sacred tent? The one… who does what is righteous, who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind. (Psalm 15)

We support Te Tiriti o Waitangi and oppose the proposed Treaty Principles Bill

It is somewhat baffling that Church leaders should state that they support Te Tiriti and that they express their commitment to it. No reason is given for this unless, like so many matters involving religion, there is an article of faith behind this.

As Christian leaders from across Aotearoa New Zealand we express our commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We affirm that Te Tiriti o Waitangi protects the Tino Rangatiratanga of hapū and iwi. That rangatiratanga over land and taonga is to be upheld.

Regrettably there may be a lack of understanding as to the terms here. It seems that Article 2 is being invoked. Historically there were breaches of the Treaty and the wrongful deprivation of land belonging to Maori. Those breaches are being remedies by the Treaty Settlement process. The proposals by Act do not involve confiscation or deprivation of governance over land and taonga owned by Maori. That said, taonga is a word the meaning of which expands like rice cooking in water and conceivably could probably include the air we breathe. Water and rivers are beginning to achieve taonga-like qualities.

We therefore express our opposition to the proposed Treaty Principles Bill.

This where the fun starts. The opposition is to a Bill that has not been seen and the language of which is unknown. It is clear that the opposition is to a proposal rather than the Bill itself.

The proposed Bill is inconsistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi in that it does not recognise the collective rights of iwi Māori or guarantee their relationship with the Crown. It would undermine what Te Tiriti guarantees, and what decades of law, jurisprudence and policy have sought to recognise.

As I understand it, as I have said, the proposal sets out to define the principles of the Treaty. I do not understand that the proposal is to dispense with the Treaty altogether and to declare it null. I am of the view that the Treaty and its precise terms, although they are anachronistic, will remain so the collective rights of iwi and their relationship with the Crown will remain.

The jurisprudence so far is very vague on precisely what the principles of the Treaty are. The law abhors uncertainty as much as nature abhors a vacuum. The definition of the principles will bring certainty and clarity to what is meant when reference is made to the Treaty principles.

We note with concern the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal’s interim report, Ngā Mātāpono – The Principles, including that the Bill “distorted the text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”

Rather like the Church representatives who signed the letter, the Waitangi Tribunal jumped the gun and condemned the Bill before its terms were made clear. Clearly they reached a decision based on early indications. It would have been better for the final proposal to be the subject of adjudication.

The opposition of the Tribunal is not unexpected. It now seems to have gone beyond its original remit. It now delivers reports that it knows will have little effect but which are used as authoritative statements from on high. One example is the 2014 report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Enquiry which stated “The rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty to Britain that is, they did not cede authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories.’

That is contrary to the available evidence and is a revisionist rewriting of history to put it in a form that the Tribunal (and many of its acolytes) retrospectively wish had been the case.

The Treaty Principles Bill may destabilise and harm Aotearoa New Zealand

We note with deep concern the harmful impacts the Bill may cause to Aotearoa New Zealand’s social cohesion.

Oh dear – there is that term “social cohesion” – roughly translated as blind conformity to an accepted line of thinking.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi provides a basis for finding common ground, recognising and reconciling past wrongs, and acts as a moral and equitable compass for our democracy.

Given that it was a compact formed in 1840 to deal with problems specific to that time it is difficult to find any justification for this sweeping assertion.

The reconciliation of past wrongs is a matter dealt with by Statute and under the intended scope of the Waitangi Tribunal. The Treaty in that sense is a starting point and where breaches occurred the Settlement process acts as that form of reconciliation. There are no remedies for breaches stated in the 1840 Treaty.

As far as a moral and equitable compass is concerned I think this refers to Article 3 which extended to Maori the rights and privileges of British Subjects.

By contrast, we believe the Treaty Principles Bill will lead to division between the peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, cause the spread of disinformation, and hinder efforts at healing and reconciliation.

It is hard to imagine how a discussion on the proposed Bill or indeed the Bill itself will lead to division. Of course there will be differing opinions. It is a characteristic of those who face areas of disagreement to refer to such disagreement as “disinformation.”

Disagreement is an element of life in a democratic society. Of course “social cohesion” which is earlier applauded in the letter means that the holding of differing opinions is frowned upon. This is not uncommon for Churches who have a long history of dealing with contrarianism and differences in doctrine. History instructs us about how some Churches dealt with dissent.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a covenantal relationship 

We affirm the Church’s ongoing, special, and historic relationship with Te Tiriti o Waitangi which many Christians view as a sacred covenant.

I can understand that the Treaty is viewed as a covenant although that word has a Biblical sense and probably is misplaced in this discussion. It is unclear how it is viewed as sacred. Unless it is specifically incorporated into a Statute by law it has no effect. I wonder if the drafter of the letter was seized by some spiritual sense in classifying the Treaty as viewed by many Christians as a scared covenant. However, I should concede that Henry Williams, who translated the Treaty into Te Tiriti viewed it as a covenant. My source does not suggest he saw it as sacred.

As inheritors of the legacy of the missionaries involved in the drafting, promotion and signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we acknowledge a duty of care for upholding the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 

No problems here. Missionaries played a significant role in the drafting, translation and signing of the Treaty. It is gracious that the Churches have a assumed a “duty of care” (a term laden with meaning for lawyers) for upholding the mana of the Treaty.

We commit our own churches to deepening our Te Tiriti o Waitangi education and pursuing reconciliation. We will work to ensure the flourishing of life in Aotearoa New Zealand for all peoples living here, both Tangata Tiriti and Tangata Whenua, as Te Tiriti of Waitangi enables.

What this has to do with the core mission of the Church is difficult to understand. The Treaty is a secular compact and this education about its place in New Zealand society is a secular responsibility.

It is difficult to see how the Treaty enables the flourishing of life in New Zealand (Aotearoa)

We call on all Members of Parliament to oppose the Treaty Principles Bill

We therefore view with concern, and oppose the proposed Treaty Principles Bill. We call on all Members of Parliament to do everything in their power to not take this Bill to Select Committee and to work towards the ongoing restoration of the Tiriti relationship.

Here is the political petition to Members of Parliament. Don’t let this Bill, whatever it says, get past a First Reading. Don’t let it get to a Select Committee. Shut down whatever discussion may be anticipated if the Bill does get to a Select Committee. Don’t let contrarians have a voice. Cancel the debate.

With love, and the hope for a flourishing and peaceful future for our people

What is Proposed

The ACT proposals, as they stand as at the time of writing this article, are very straight forward. In some respects they reflect the deeper meaning behind the articles of the Treaty and restate that deeper meaning as a principle. How those principles will be applied when it comes to decisions about interpretation of legislation are as yet unclear.

What is proposed is that the principles would be applicable to all New Zealanders irrespective of race.

Two Draft Version of Principles

Two sets of principles have been put forward.

First Draft

This first set was available from the ACT website.

The first principle states “The New Zealand Government has the right to govern all New Zealanders.” This is an assertion of sovereignty and the sovereign power of the Government. This was the effect of Article 1 but rather than sovereign power passing from the Chiefs to the Crown it affirms the reality of the present state of affairs.

The second principle reads “The New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property” Thus use of the word “chieftainship” is confusing and it is to be hoped that this will be substituted with a more meaningful term. But what Article 2 did was that it confirmed the ownership and control of Maori land, forests and taonga. It provided that if Maori wished to sell their land they could only do so to the Government. This was to stop uncontrolled alienation of Maori land. But Article 2 recognised indigenous title.

The second principle is a confirmation and recognition by the Government of rights of property (a very broad and complex legal term) for all New Zealanders.

The third principle reads “All New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties.”  That was given to Maori under Article 3 and the wording of this principle makes it clear that there is equality under the law for all New Zealanders.

Second Draft

The second set, which was came from the Cabinet Meeting of 9 September provide as follows:

First Principle

The Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.

A bit more verbose than the first cut. There is an additional statement of purpose. It was unnecessary.

Second Principle

The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreement with the Crown.

This has quite a different tenor from what was proposed in the first cut which essentially was a property protection clause. This proposal entrenches the rights hapu and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. That is still a highly contentious issue. The principle affirms that the Crown will respect and protect those rights. Clearly this principle sets a property protection right that differs from that which applies to all. If ACT was wanting to get rid of race-based preferential treatment this principle does not do it. The only glimmer of equal treatment for all is that the Treaty based rights must be specified in legislation, Treaty settlements or other agreements with the Crown. Thus there has to be a clear pathway for preferential treatment of hapu and iwi property rights through legislation, treaty settlements or agreements with the Crown and not otherwise.

Third Principle

Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.

Once again the essential principle of equality before the law remains. In fact the second sentence is redundant because it says exactly what the first one says except that it refers to human rights and protection from discrimination. Given the way that the Human Rights Act has been manipulated in the recent past (I have an article forthcoming on the misreading of history by the Human Rights Commission and their uncritical adoption of a non-existent theory) I am not sure that this language is wise.

ACT makes it clear that the text of the 1840 Treaty as written and signed will remain unchanged.

It is anticipated that a Bill will be introduced in November.

Why so Objectionable?

What possible objection could anyone – even the most ardent social justice church-person – have with the proposition that “All New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties.” Is the Church about to deny the legitimacy of the Government and bridle against ACT’s principle 1. And the Church can hardly argue with a clause that affirms property rights. An element of a property right is a right to dispose of it as the owner thinks fit. Tithes come to mind.

If we look at the principles as stated in either draft they would probably be recognized by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill. They are fairly universal propositions for a democratic state. They encapsulate the Rule of Law, Property Rights and Equality of Treatment.

And this may be the problem. The names that I have cited above, along with a large number of others like Thomas Hobbes and David Hume together with Voltaire and Rousseau are all associated with the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment and the Church

The relationship between the Enlightenment and organized religion is complex, and whether they are fundamentally incompatible depends on how each is understood.

The Enlightenment was a broad intellectual movement in 18th-century Europe that emphasized reason, individualism, and scepticism toward traditional authority, including the authority of religion.

Its principles often stood in contrast to the established dogmas of organized religion, but that doesn't mean they are inherently incompatible in all cases.

There were a number of point of tension. Some of these are as follows:

1.       Rationalism vs. Faith: Enlightenment thinkers emphasized reason and empirical evidence as the primary paths to knowledge. This often clashed with religious doctrines that rely on faith, revelation, or tradition. Some Enlightenment philosophers, like Voltaire and Diderot, were openly critical of the Catholic Church and organized religion in general. The Roman Catholic Church and European monarchs tried to censor, or ban, many of the books and other works of Enlightenment thinkers as a threat to their authority.

2.       Scepticism of Authority: Many Enlightenment thinkers were sceptical of institutions that held significant power, including religious institutions. They criticized the Church's role in politics, education, and social life, seeing it as an impediment to freedom and progress.

3.       Secularism: The Enlightenment encouraged the separation of church and state, advocating for a society in which religion would not dictate public policy or law and for religious tolerance. Philosophers like John Locke argued for the fundamental right to freedom of conscience and the pluralism of religious beliefs. This notion challenged the theocratic influence that many organized religions exerted in governance at the time.

On the other hand there were points of compatibility. Some of these are as follows:

1.       Deism and Moderate Religion: Some Enlightenment thinkers, like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, embraced Deism—a belief in a Creator who set the universe in motion but does not intervene in human affairs. Deism was compatible with Enlightenment principles because it allowed for a belief in God while rejecting dogmatic religious authority and supernatural claims.

2.       Moral Overlap: Both the Enlightenment and many religious traditions emphasize moral behaviour, justice, and the promotion of human well-being. While their sources of morality might differ, there are shared values that can align.

3.       Reform within Religion: Some religious thinkers of the time sought to reconcile religious belief with Enlightenment ideas. Figures like Immanuel Kant and the later development of Liberal Theology tried to adapt Christianity to Enlightenment values by emphasizing the ethical teachings of religion over its supernatural claims.

To Conclude

Thus, the Enlightenment and organized religion often clashed, particularly in terms of authority, reason, and the role of faith. However, they are not necessarily incompatible. Deism and liberal forms of religion sought to bridge the gap, and in some cases, religious institutions adapted or evolved in response to Enlightenment critiques.

The extent to which they are incompatible depends largely on the type of religion and the particular Enlightenment principles in question.

The issue here is that the Church by its Open Letter is actively interfering in secular political processes. It seeks to disrupt those processes. It seeks to use its persuasive and moral power to influence others to its point of view. And it seeks to limit or indeed eliminate discussion and debate about three principles which reflect Enlightenment thinking.

And the question that this raises is whether in fact the centuries old Enlightenment/Church contest continues.