Discrimination against celery is disallowed

I visited a huge wholesale produce market today. Fascinating place. The biggest in our state.

It's full of forklifts and people busily whizzing here and there.

A wonder to behold.

But dangerous too - so they get you to watch a safety induction video before they let you take to the floor alone.

The video was good, but a few things surprised me.

Under absolutely no circumstances will discrimination be tolerated in the market.

That's what they told me.

Which perplexes me : I thought I would get to choose between different grades of produce.

You know - if I want apples, maybe I chould choose Granny Smith over Fuji, or maybe choose organic over conventional, or maybe look at one set of apples and decide they're not quite as fresh as another.

But apparently, that's not allowed.

You see, identifying differences between two pieces of fruit is discrimination.

We say a wine connoiseur has "discriminating tastes".

And a vegan might too, as regards his fruit & vege.

But nope - not allowed here.

In fact, technically, distinguishing between apples and pears and deciding that you actually want apples, not pears, is another form of discrimination.

Poor pears - feel so dejected.

And one more step of logic if I may - isn't discriminating against my $5 bill when the price is $10 also a form of discrimination?

So it's quite a wonder it's a market at all - you'd think that anyone could come and take anything for any price, what with the absolute rule against all forms of discrimination within the market, but anyway...

I suppose someone will think they're smart and tell me "but what they MEAN, you numbskull [a kindly reference to yours truly] is that discrimination on the basis of gender, belief, or sexual inclination - THAT'S the kind of discrimination that's not allowed. Thickhead!"

Oh, ok. Thanks for filling me in - I didn't realise I was a thickhead until you told me.

So let me get this straight then : if I have a sexual orientation for exhibitiionist fruitiality (sex in public with items of fruit), no-one there will interfere, right? I mean, they're all loving, friendly, non-discriminatory blokes. It's not like I'm forcing my sexual orientation on them - they don't have to participate if they don't want.

Of course there is the issue that I'm into fruitiality, not vegieality, so that's discrimination against vegies - oh, but wait - that's right, discriminating between fruit & vege is ok. Got it.

What's that you said? Sorry? What? Did I hear you right? Hang on a moment, folks, someone's telling me I should probably not try practicing my exhibitionist fruitiality at the market. Why not?

Hang on folks - I'll be right back.

Ok, sorry - I'm being told that practicing my fruitiality in front of non fruitialitists would be discriminating against their sexual preferences. I don't quite understand why, but that's what they tell me, so I'd better play it safe.

So, this "belief" and "gender" bizzo - let me get this straight : if a seller sells something to a woman, he's not allowed to carry the box back to the woman's car, when he doesn't do that for men, 'coz that would be discriminating on the basis gender, right?

So let me get this straight : no discriminating between men and women.

So why do they have separate toilets?

I mean that's a farce if ever I heard one - "no discrimination between the genders" and then they go and force us to use different toilet blocks. Hey, I'm a clean pisser - why should I be forced to use the filthy bloke's block when the femme's is so pristine? Seriously... whoever makes these rules is a loser.

And then that "belief" bizzo. What if I believe this whole load of discrimination against some forms (but not others) of discrimination is a whole load of hogwash?

Y'know, what if I went there and practiced my exhibitionary fruit thingy or used the female loo? I betcha they'd be angry! Hypocrites! Beliefs are sacred, or so they claim, and yet they discriminate against mine.

I dunno... what's the world coming too...

Beers, bars, nuns and suicide bombers

This piece of fiction was inspired by the muslim riots in France several years ago - you know, the ones done in response to the "Danish cartoons". It just took a little while to go from thoughts to fingers... :o)

A nun and a Muslim suicide bomber walked into a bar.

They both ask for water.

A man turns to the nun, sees the cross hanging around her neck, and sneers.

"You Christians are imbeciles! Everyone knows God doesn't exist. You preach a false hope in some fictitious paradise. You're all delusional. And worse - you're an angry, violent mob! Do you know how many wars have been started in the name of your God? You're just a bunch of violent thugs!"

The nun is so surprised and taken aback, she almost laughs.

"Well, my fine sir. I'm sorry to hear that's your impression of us. I'm not quite sure where you get that idea from.

"Yes, I am a Christian, but I go around helping people who are frail or ill.

"You are of course entitled to your opinion on the matter, and I'm glad you took the time to express your thoughts, but I think it would be worth your time investigating more closely.

"We are, or we do try to be, a very loving lot."

Another man wanders over, curious at the sight of the unusual visitors in the bar. He didn't hear the first conversation, but he sees the muslim headdress on the suicide bomber, and he sneers.

"You Muslims are imbeciles!" he says. "Everyone knows there is no God. You preach a false hope in some fictitious paradise. You're all delusional. And worse - you're an angry, violent mob! Do you know how many wars have been started in the name of your God? You're just a bunch of violent thugs!"

The suicide bomber is enraged. His face hardens. His lips turn sinister, and a red flush sweeps his face as rage and adrenalin sweep his body.

"Me, angry?!!!" he yells.

"How DARE you call my religion angry and violent!" he says, stepping back from the bar.

He picks up a glass, and throws it against a wall where it smashes. "I can't BELIEVE you would say such a ridiculous thing!"

He glares menancingly at the patrons, before sending beer and bottles flying as he tips over a table, and storms out the front door.

A few minutes later, loud smashes and bangs are heard on the streets. A few patrons peek out through the windows. The suicide bomber has called on his mates, and together with crowbards and hammers, they are smashing windows, tipping vehicles, and even setting some vehicles on fire.

The marauding mob is occasionally heard to yell things like "We are a religion of PEACE!" and "Stop the discrimination! We have a right to practice our religion in line with our beliefs!"

Eventually the mob passes a bystander, who asks the suicide bomber, "What's happening?"

"It's the fool in the pub" replies the suicide bomber. "He called us Muslims hateful and angry. But we are PEACEFUL."

"But you look pretty violent and angry right now?" suggests the bystander with sincere curiosity.

"We're not angry, and we're not violent. It's that fool in the pub who made us angry right now, but we're not actually angry or violent people in reality" said the suicide bomber.

"Ok, but I was in a pub a little while ago - maybe the same one - and as I was walking out, I heard someone ridiculing a nun. She could have turned angry and nasty, but she responded very kindly to the man. I don't know what happened after that, 'coz I was leaving, but is it possible that the fools in the pub simply showed what was already on the inside?"

So here's the rub : next time you see a violent angry mob of Muslims, claiming to be justified by criticism in the media, ask yourself for that particular mob "would a nun or a priest have responded in the same way?" And if not, then is it possible that the brimming anger and violence was already latent in the mob, just looking for an excuse to spill out? Just some thoughts...

Jesus, Peter, and the "Don't judge me!" brigade

Like Pavlov's dogs, Christians have been well trained by their Humanist overlords.

Simply whisper the word "discrimination", or sigh the word "judgementalism", and Christians the western world around will instantly stop their mouths.

But do these terms make sense? Are they well applied? Consider this imaginary Scripture fragment and compare it to how Humanists around you are getting Christians to dance to their tune by the power of the conditioned response to these words...

Matthew 16:13-23, Really Inspired Version

v 13 Jesus asked His disciples, "Whom do men say I am?"

v 14 and they answered "Some say you are John the Baptist; some say Elijah; and others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

v 15 Then he asked them "But whom do you say I am?"

v 16 and Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"

v 17 At that moment, an indignant voice rang out.  "YOU'RE JUDGING ME!!!" screamed Mary-Anne, a woman who stood nearby.

v 18 Peter, bewildered, asketh her, "What meanest thou by this manner of words?"

v 19 Mary-Anne answering said unto him, "You're JUDGING me!  How DARE you say Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, when I don't believe a word of it!

v 20 [she continued] "You're telling me that what I believe is WRONG, ALL WRONG!  YOU JUDGEMENTAL PERSON!  I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE YOU CALL YOURSELF A FOLLOWER OF JESUS!!!"

v 21 And having said these words, Mary-Anne turned on her heel and departed thence.

v 22 Peter, bewlidered, turneth to Jesus and asketh, "My Lord, is there error in me?"

v 23 Jesus smiled softly, and spake "Nay Peter, but there are some who cannot stand to hear the sound of a voice with which they disagree.  Their hearts are stubborn, and incline not to learning."

Whatever happened to journalism?

Bill Muehlenberg has a very interesting article on homosexual marriage and the role of the media.