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.

Make WHAT Count 2010?

Make It Count 2010 was on tonight - the two competitors for Australia's top job addressed a Christian audience and responded to questions from our foremost Christian leaders.  What did I learn?  I express my concerns to the man who organised the event...

Dear Brigadier Wallace,

My wife and I were surprised, nay shocked, nay horrified, that there was no mention at "Make It Count 2010" of the greatest social injustice of our time : the summary execution of hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens without due process of law.

In a world where would-be adoptive parents are plentiful, and often resort to international adoptions or give up due to high costs, why is it that we can find no other option for Australia's unwanted children?

Worse yet, how can a hall full of representatives of the Christian faith, clamour about climate and education and supposed "social injustices" evidenced towards some thousands here and some tens of thousands there, without thought of the greater corpus of innocents who have suffered the severest injustice of all?

If the church cares for social justice - as your nominated representatives seem to claim - then why is it silent on the greatest issue of social justice today?

Is it too divisive for Christians to agree on?

Then what exactly is "Christian" about the Christians we heard tonight if they can't make a call on such an obvious violation of human rights?

Is it a settled issue - a battle we've already lost?

But then slavery was a settled issue.

And silent acceptance of this supposedly settled issue makes mockery of our claims to care about the myriad lesser social evils.

Is it too controversial to ask Rudd's and Abbott's views on this in public?

Well hey, the deaths are happening, and if you really don't want to embarass them or cause a ruckuss, you can always ensure the question is worded as amiably as possible, so they can feel perfectly guiltless giving their "we all hate abortion but it's better than the alternatives" pat answer.  At least then their cards will be very visibly on the table, and Christians will be reminded that this is an issue - the worst issue of social injustice today.

Who cares whether they open parliament with the Lord's Prayer, before proceeding to legalise more massacres?

Who cares if they sponsor Christian and Moslem and Atheist chaplains and counsellors in schools, if half the children who would have been in those schools were deprived of life and liberty and forced into a choiceless termination of existence with the blessing of the same government that sponsors the chaplains.

Who cares if they let boat people in, or keep them out, if hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens have died on our very land by preventable causes : abortive surgery and abortifacients.

Who cares what we do to help the Aboriginals help themselves, if we won't even give the unborn a chance to help themselves.

The needless slaughter of the innocents dwarfs all other social concerns by sheer number of victims.

Yet your "Christians" didn't seem to care.

"Make It Count 2010" was informative, but the most surprising learning was not about Abbott or Rudd : it was about the state of the Church.  If these are our leaders, then help us God.

False hypevertising - Apple does it again

"iPhone 4. This changes everything. Again."

Thus saith the latest Apple advert email.

It arrived in my usual email program.

That hasn't changed.

It used the standard HTML email format.

That hasn't changed.

It appeared on my 22" LCD monitor.

That hasn't changed, either.

They want me to buy it in Aussie dollars.

I don't think we've changed currency recently, so I don't think that changed either.

In fact, the iPhone 3.1 SDK still works. That ain't changed.

And whilst there are a bunch of new APIs in the iPhone 4 SDK, it's backwards compatible. So not everything's changed - a bunch of things by definition have stayed the same (or else they wouldn't be backwards-compatible now, would they, eh?).

The phone still supports old 2G and GPRS standards. Have those changed?

The brand name is identical to previous versions - Apple.

I could go on all day - for months or years in fact.

In reality, "a lot" has changed, but nothing compared to everything.

So why do they say "This changes everything"?

If it hasn't changed everything, but they claim it has, then what value is their claim?

Hype.

I guess Apple is good at that.

And hey, I personally think it's a pretty good product.

But if I had to choose between a world of hype and imprecision - where you never know exactly what someone means - or a world of joy and clarity - where precision yields certainty and safety - I'd choose the latter.

"Game changing" is a high-hype phrase, but definitely accurate for the iPhone 4.

"Revolutionise your life" - for many people, the iPhone 4 will revolutionise their life. That's another high-hype phrase they could have used that would also fit in the realm of accurate communications.

But they choose to use words so grossly inaccurate that they are practically meaningless : "This changes everything".

Wow.

I'm still on earth, earth still exists, and if I'm not much mistaken, this is still my blog.

A lot ain't changed.

If you want to communicate with me, Apple, I enjoy hype, but only accurate hype.

Of course, the ad wasn't targetting people like me.

But it raises questions.

What kind of society have we become if we can't say what we mean anymore?

The Blasphemous Apple

I was surprised on the Apple website the other day to see the iPad described as "the greatest gift ever".

Wow! I don't think Jesus knew that He was second-rate as gifts go.

Technically, this means that Apple computer publicly blasphemed, exalting itself as greater than God.

So can we attribute this God-complex to Steve Jobs himself?

Nah - probably not. Probably more to an over-zealous and under-careful marketing staffer.

I notice it's disappeared already. Maybe someone else in the company had the sense to have it pulled? Dunno.

Humour is one thing, but the statement was not intended to be humorous. It truly was a denigration of the gift of Christ, albeit probably unintentionally so.

"Big deal" you say. Well, I'm not so sure.

"Pride cometh before a fall", and exalting oneself above one's station, to proclaim oneself to be greater than the Unchanging One - that certainly falls within the definition of pride - so if it represents a wider attitude within Apple, then yes, perhaps it foretells a pending fall....... Of course, "pending" could be years away yet. And if it was just a blunder at a lower level, not reflective of wider Apple attitudes, then any "fall" would relate to the individual at fault, not to the company as a whole...

In any case, it is the first time I recall seeing such a notable and generally respected company overtly blaspheme. The times, they are a changin'.

Channel Nine News Rants Against Facts

I don't know if Channel Nine News ever thought it could be taken seriously for objective journalism, but if it did, it has made a total mockery of the concept just now.

In headline news entitled "Book of hate : Beauty queen cites Bible for gay death", they allege that "Another US beauty queen has caused controversy with an anti-gay rant - this time citing Bible passages that call for death to homosexuals".

"Rant", "death", "controversy" - it all sounds so exciting.

But look at the facts?

The article cites the controversial statement :

"In Leviticus it says, 'if man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination — they shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them'," she was quoted as saying.

"If (God) says that having sex with someone of the same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning ... and he knows more than we do about life."

Um, that's a rant?

Quoting a Bible verse and politely suggesting it might have validity, is a rant?

In fact, the article goes on to say the beauty queen in question has many homosexual friends, and hey, doesn't actually harbour hatred towards them! Well, how about that!

So let's get this straight : quoting a Bible verse and politely suggesting it might still be valid is "ranting", whilst wording headlines to imply a peace-loving person is malicious, angry and hateful, is legitimate?

Two idiotic assumptions underpin the article :

Idiotic assumption 1) It is impossible to believe that a crime should ever be punishable by death, without personally hating everyone who commits the crime.

Ah - no.

Take "Dead Man Walking".

It's possible to forgive, and love criminals, and yet still recognise that the best thing for society as a whole is for people to know that certain crimes are punished by death.

Or let's take their assumption a little bit further : why stop at the arbitrary point they do? Why not assume it's impossible to believe that a crime should be punishable at all, without personally hating everyone who commits the crime?

Crikey, c'mon! Are we supposed to believe that no punishment should ever occur for any crime? Don't we recognise that sometimes punishing a crime is the most loving thing to do, whether for the criminal, or at least for society as a whole?

And if they agree that punishment in general can be meted without hate, then why arbitrarily say the death penalty cannot be meted without hate?

I mean, some people get a "life sentence" - life in jail. That's gotta be pretty bad. Is that really any much better than just getting it over with and letting the criminal cease living?

But if you're gonna say life sentences are likewise evil, well, how is a life sentence of 40 years that much different to say a 35 year prison term?

And if we axe 35 year prison terms, what about 32 year prison terms?

And if 32, what about 30?

And if 30, what about 25?

And ultimately, you realise it's just a matter of degree.

You can't make a conclusive argument that punishment of some kind is permissible, but the death penalty is not - it's just a matter of degree. Where you draw the line will differ from where the next guy draws the line. So who's right?

In other words, Channel Nine News heaps ridicule on a woman who suggests that the death penalty might still apply, but the only absolutely-logically-consistent alternative is to suggest that no punishment should ever occur.

Oh sure, you can mount a somewhat logical argument in favour of drawing the punishment line here or there, but when you see the next guy with a somewhat logical argument draw the same line in a different place, you gotta realise your own case ain't so watertight after all.

But who cares about watertight logic and facts when you can accuse a Bible-believer of hatred? C'mon! Gotta use every chance we can to bash these people who actually believe that the Bible might have some use in the 21st century!

Idiotic assumption 2) Homosexuality is beyond question.

Ah, no.

What kind of race are we if anything becomes "beyond question"?

Surely to retain our self-ascribed title of "homo sapien" (sapien = wise), we must recognise the importance of continuing to allow everything to be questioned.

What's wrong with her raising the possibility that there might be inherent problems with the homosexual lifestyle?

Ask an ex-homosexual like Sy Rogers. It ain't all rosy.

And if there are inherent problems, who's to say they aren't severe problems?

So severe, perhaps, that whilst the individual homosexuals should be loved, their homosexual actions should be curtailed, perhaps even with severe force?

What's wrong with raising the question?

What's wrong with believing it yourself, as obviously this beauty queen is inclined to do?

What if she happens to have seen some of the studies that show the darker side of homosexuality, and concludes that the modern adulation of the practice is insane?

Or is there a deeper issue?

Maybe Channel Nine News believes that no-one should force their moral standards onto anyone else.

But hang on a moment - isn't Channel Nine News berating this beauty queen for believing that homosexuality is bad, and so bad that the death penalty should be considered?

Isn't Channel Nine News forcing its moral standard of not questionning anyone's moral standards?

I mean, if you really believe that the most moral thing to do is not express your moral views to anyone else, lest you be "forcing your morals on them", then at least be consistent enough to live by your own morals and not try to tell me to not talk about my morals!

Channel Nine News, wake up, you idiot. Either don't express your moral views by telling others what to do, or else do allow others to express their moral views.

In short, Channel Nine News is a propaganda machine, not an objective news service, if this is the kind of stuff it publishes.

-

Q&A :

Q : Where is "Book of hate" in the headline?

A : On the ninemsn.com.au homepage, the link to the article was called "book of hate". UPDATE : And now another link on the ninemsn.com.au homepage is called "Hateful beauty : Starlet quotes Bible for gay death". They're obsessed, against the facts, with calling the woman "hateful". That's ranting, if you ask me!

UPDATE : Ironically, one of the news articles sharing the headlines was entitled "Mum who gassed kids jailed for life". Would you know it, Channel Nine seems to think life sentence in prison is ok for some crimes, but death penalty is not for others. So basically, Channel Nine is trying to force ITS morality on US. So why the self-righteous chest-beating when it finds other people also expressing their views on morality?

(update continued) : And note that the beauty queen was ASKED for her opinion on homosexuality - she didn't publish it uninvited as Channel Nine is doing all the time. So in reality, Channel Nine "News" is the one that is constantly ranting and forcing its morality on others, whilst this nice little girl from the US was just politely answering some questions. Shame, Nine News, shame. From now on you can be called the Channel Nine Propaganda Service.