His idea is that there is a hierarchy of authority. That authority starts with His word. He then gives human government the right and obligation to carry out His laws. He gives land owners rights over trespassers. He gives Parents authority over children.

Naturally people will always attempt to usurp proper authority. Children will rebel against their parents. Parents should be able to settle those issues within the family. If they cannot then it is the government’s obligation to step in.

People will always usurp the authority of the government. The governments of the world have almost entirely usurped their obligation to God in that they:
1: Do not punish the guilty
2: Punish the innocent
3: Make stupid laws that bring a burden to the people
4: Steal and write theft into law
5: Take control of areas where they do not have authority
6: Make the people their authority rather than God.

It is the greatest defeat for a godly society when its government fails to teach the people by instituting and keeping God’s law.

What do you think God meant when He said that governments get their authority from Him?

Jesus said to obey the authorities. He established that there would be such things and He directed that we follow their rules.

Hmmmm…. God establishes the authorities, they set the laws in place… you say they are dumb laws… did God set the wrong authority in place?

Grant – “New Zealand laws are dumb” – this is an uninformed generalization.

We have laws that force the police and judiciary to ignore the law in order to serve reasonable justice. That’s a stupid legal system.

I’m sure it is a generalisation I made, but it is certainly not “uninformed” when the scenario is admitted in the article, “…Helen Clark and John Key added an amendment giving police the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents where the offense is considered inconsequential.”

If an action is an offense it should be punished as one. If an action is not an offense there should be no law against it.

New Zealand law is dumb, and there is an informed reason why it is so!

Our legal system is one of the best in the world.

Really? Is that why it does so much to halt the crime rate? I think you’re confused. I think you meant to say that New Zealand is a nicer place to live than many other nations. Is that what you meant to say?

Of course it includes some faulty legislation but it is constantly being reviewed and fine tuned.

One does not need to fine tune or review a good legal system. One only has to work to avoid a good legal system being corrupted.

You should try living in a country with a corrupt and unjust legal system then you might appreciate how fortunate we are.

What, like Taiwan? Should I try living there for a while? Would that make my opinion any more valid in your opinion?

The same goes for our police force. The police aren’t saints and there’ll always be a few rotten apples but by and large our police force do a difficult job as well as they can.

One of the problems faced by our lawmakers and the police is that things aren’t simply black and white as you suggest. There are lots of gray areas which are hard to legislate and hard to police.

A child can be grossly neglected or mentally abused and bare no marks of injury. Even a harsh physical beating can leave little trace if the beater is smart.

That’s why we have to create a society where violence, especially towards women and children, is never ignored. This means if a child complains to the police it must be investigated. OK it may turn out to be a hoax which our police officers will quickly determine. If all complaints are not taken seriously then more horrendous child and wife abuse will go undetected, undeterred and unpunished.

In response to this case – Without having to suggest that we cannot judge Mr. Flynn we should simply be able to look at the child. Is he dead? Is there any injury? If yes then Mr. Flynn should be charged and properly dealt with.

If there is no injury and the child is complaining to the police then perhaps he would prefer their form of discipline.

I have no right to judge you or call your account into question but can I plead with you, as one flawed father to another, to honestly examine your life – just between you and Jesus, who knows us totally and sees through all our lies and excuses.

At the start of your reply you ask why the assault charges – including a charge of assaulting a female – were dropped? My question is why were these charges laid in the first place? Did you hit your son in the face? Did you at least frighten the woman mentioned enough so she thought you might assault her?

For a moment forget the police, the courts, Sue Bradford and every other person you can blame and don’t try to claim that you’re vindicated by a verse or two from the bible.

When you look in the mirror do you honestly see a loving, forgiving, gentle person or do you see someone who has problems with anger and violence?

If you do have these problems (and brother we all have our issues)face them humbly, ask Jesus for forgiveness and get help. There are lots of good, Christian counsellors out there.

If on the other hand you deny your inner monsters and continue down a path of self justification those monsters will destroy you and further damage those you love.

I apologize for preaching – it’s just that I spent many years trying to justify and excuse my own wickedness but eventually and painfully I had to face it and find help.

None of us are justified in all our actions but all of us can be forgiven.

May Jesus forgive and help us both.

I believe that the charges were dropped because the police knew that if they pushed the matter through the court they had little chance of winning and would very likely have been publicly humiliated in the attempt!

This highlights another danger of Sue Bradford’s dopey bill: It is a powerful weapon for the police, or perhaps more seriously, angry ex wives to use against people who they want to “get”
The police had wanted to “get” me for some time after I had embarrassed them by writing critical letters about them to our local newspaper.
So keen were they to nail me on a serious charge that in their haste they failed to take the most logical and neccessary step; question an eye witness.
Anyone wanting to know more about this incident can write to me at gooneybird@windowslive.com

R. J. Flynn

In this instance, the explanation for the pseudonym has been explained well by Flendolyn, so hopefully that is adequate