Commemorating 9/11/01

Nine years ago, the world changed and became intensely less safe because of the religious zeal of a few people. It is, I am sure I can assert, without much argument, one of the saddest days in history when four passenger planes were hijacked and two flew into the World Trade Centre towers in New York City, One crashed into the Pentagon building in Washington D.C. and one did not reach its intended target, but crashed into a field. It ranks easily Pearl Harbour, the starts of World War I and II, The Blitz (The 70th anniversary has just passed), The Holocaust, The massacre at Beslan, and the 7/7 bombings on London Tube trains and buses to name just a few.

Each of these occasions has been commemorated in some symbolic way, usually by a religious ceremony or by some monument being built to honour those that had died as result. If I were to ask older folk, who were alive at that time, I am sure they can recall vividly the declaration of war with Germany made in 1939 by the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain that was broadcast. However, with the news coverage of the events on September 11th 2001, many more people can recall note only listening to, but watching live as it happened, the place crashing in the WTC, and the towers collapse, one after the other, and the resulting chaos, and the tremendous rescue effort that followed. Because we not only heard about it, but watched it happening, the event impacted itself into our memories. 

How does one commemorate an event like 9/11? Lay a wreath at a memorial? Hold a moment's (traditionally a minute) silence at the moment it happened. Sad events such as those listed above usually evoke intense feelings of sadness but often, associated with that sadness are feelings of anger directed at those who we believe are responsible for causing the event. Anger in itself, is not wrong, especially when it is directed against injustices such as those perpetrated against the victims on 9/11.  However we are told that in our anger, we should not sin. (Eph 4:26) Sadly, when people get angry, the 'red mist' descends and they (we) lose perspective. Justice, in ancient times was often administered by a king or a head of state. Often, when this king was personally affected by the alleged crime, his ability to make fair judgement was impaired. In principle then, in our modern times there is a distinction drawn between the three 'arms' of government, executive (head of state), legislative (parliament, Congress) and judicial (law courts).  Further, it is expected that in jury trials, a judge or a juror who personally knows any of the people involved in a case, or who has somehow been affected by the case under review should not have anything to do with that case. 

However it is not only in the context of court and trials that judgements are made. Every day, people form their own opinions about what is happening in the news - we all cant help it - we hear something on the news and we, without necessarily knowing all the facts, draw our own conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of an action, and who is responsible. It is as it were a mental reflex action! We hear of a road accident, and we immediately are interested in who is responsible. I am as responsible for being judgmental as much as the next person. I have no doubt that everyone has an opinion about who is responsible for 9/11. Although it is common knowledge now that Al Quaeda led by Osama bin Laden were responsible for devising, and sponsoring the attacks, some people feel the need to cast the net of suspicion wider or come up with some convoluted conspiracy theory that implicates the GW Bush administration in the attacks themselves. Then there are those who feel that ALL Muslims are or THE RELIGION ITSELF is responsible for the attacks...


Such is the case of one Reverend Dr. Terry Jones who has written a book "Islam is of the Devil" and who has declared September 11th World Burn a Koran day. He is the pastor of a church called Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL. As might be expected, he has received death threats and now goes about armed with a pistol. The idea of burning Qurans has been condemned by people from every quarter and the inadvisability of going ahead with the idea has been spelt out by everyone. I still can't quite get over how the church is called "Dove" - when doves are supposed to be symbols of peace. He is trying to make out that this is only about the Quran but then wonders why he has deliberately decided to do this dastardly despicable deed on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks - clearly drawing a link to those events. Also, if the Quran, in his opinion, is of the devil, why not also burn the holy books of other religions too - hinduism, buddhism, etc. Clearly, this act is not primarily about destroying a "corrupting text" but specifically aimed at hurting and inflaming those he blames for the 9 11 attacks - Muslims. 


What is to be done about this state of affairs? We only need to cast our minds back to Salman Rushdie and the infamous book "Satanic Verses" and the reaction to this formerly Muslim writer to the publication of his book, and then there were the cartoons of Mohammed that caused an uproar and demonstrations all over the world. In his wisdom, the crazy clergyman has provided advance warning and has made his intentions very clear. Since he really refuses to see sense, what needs to happen now? Should he be allowed to proceed with the crazy idea? 


I don't think so - I think that images of Qurans being thrown into a fire would have such a backlash, and has already been indicated, it could endanger the lives of American (and possibly other troops). Based on that fact, I think that the Federal Government of the USA would be justified in taking whatever steps necessary to prevent the quran burning - including sending in the National Guard.

The Merry Wives of Windsor and some thoughts on getting married.

You do amaze her: hear the truth of it.

You would have married her most shamefully,

Where there was no proportion held in love.

The truth is, she and I, long since contracted,

Are now so sure that nothing can dissolve us.

The offence is holy that she hath committed;

And this deceit loses the name of craft,

Of disobedience, or unduteous title,

Since therein she doth evitate and shun

A thousand irreligious cursed hours,

Which forced marriage would have brought upon her.

The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act V

It was such a wonderful experience going to the Globe Theatre on the South Bank of the Thames and seeing this play performed. It is hugely funny - I have not laughed so much in a long time. If anyone asks, methinks The bard invented situation comedy! As with many of Shakespeare's plays, The Merry Wives of Windsor (hereafter referred to as the play) is about disguise, and marriage. With plot and sub plots, the play is far too complicated to explain fully here, but the bit that I want to focus on is the daughter of one of the 'wives', Anne Page, has three suitors, who are:

Master Abraham Slender: Shallow's cousin. He is shy and self-effacing, and always defers to his uncle, who wants him to marry Anne Page. Slender's servant Simple describes him as having "a little whey-face, with a little yellow beard" (whey means pallid.) Slender is not particularly interested in marrying Anne Page, but he is willing to go along with what his uncle has arranged for him. However, Anne Page thinks he is an idiot, and has no intention of marrying him.

Dr. Caius: Dr. Caius is a French physician who seeks to marry Anne Page. He speaks bad English with a French accent. He is also hot-tempered and challenges Evans to a duel. Mistress Quickly, his housekeeper, devises a scheme whereby he will be able to marry Anne, but the plan fails.

Fenton:  in love with Anne Page and seeks to marry her. At first he sought her hand only because of the money she is inheriting, but he soon fell in love with her for her admirable qualities. Anne's father opposes Fenton, however. He believes Fenton is unsuitable because he comes from a higher social level and is too sophisticated and worldly for Anne. He also thinks that Fenton is motivated by a desire for monetary gain.

The notes above are taken from this website:  NovelGuide.com

Master Page, Anne's father wanted Anne to marry Abraham Slender.
Mistress Page, Anne's mother wanted Anne to marry the French doctor.

The quotation I started this blog off with are the words of Fenton.  In a hugely funny scene at the end, the other two suitors find they have been duped and almost married off to boys, pretending to be the lovely Anne.

So much for the story: Why am I blogging on this subject? Well, I believe that down through the years, this matter of marriage and suitable marriages has been a major issue and although we are now in the twenty-first century, we cannot take for granted that people are getting married for the right reason to the right people. Different cultures have different perception of arranged marriages - that is where people other than the two people concerned make the decision to marry.  

My father always jokes that he married for money: He was thirsty at the time and my mother had two shillings and sixpence: The price of a beer in those days!

Jokes aside, for many people marriage is all about money. People decide to marry or NOT to marry based on whether or not they will be better off financially.  Some tax systems are set up such that the married couple gets certain benefits that single people are not entitled to, whereas other systems are "individual" based and as such tax both parties in the marriage separately without taking into account the marriage at all. I am no tax expert,  but suffice to say, that taxation has played a significant role in decisions on whether to marry or not to marry.

In this era of "free love" the concept of keeping sexual intercourse to the confines of a marriage is regarded by many as quaint.  People cheat on their spouses, and sleep with other people, and when challenged their defense can be summed up in the words: "It's just sex" - I don't love him/her, I love you. In the words of that famous Tina Turner song - "What's love gotta do, gotta do with it?"  Love is nothing but a second hand emotion - or so she thinks.

Marriage for cultural and religious reasons. Recently, the UK had to introduce laws that prevent people being taken out the country and forced to marry someone (usually a total stranger to them).  This is because many Pakistani parents have pledged their daughters' (mostly) hands in marriage to a stranger (in Pakistan). I mention Pakistan simply because it is within this community that the issue is most prevalent.  We have read of serious crimes being committed against people who have attempted to avoid this - or where the daughter has become involved with a man who is not the one her parents intended for her to marry.  The expression "honour killings" springs to mind.  I understand that there are some marriages that had been so arranged that have worked - and that the couple do love each other, or at least grow to love each other, but personally I am most sceptical about such unions.

Marriage to gain residential and citizenship status in a country. Citizenship is something that is granted to people who are born in a country or people who have entered a country in terms of the laws of that country with the stated intention of remaining there. However, as with marriage, the decision to go and live in a country is often driven by economics. Immigration laws are thus set up to prevent an influx of people from all over the world who would represent a drag on the economy - who would use resources that are needed for the citizenry. However, no country can simply pull up the draw bridge and let nobody in or out. There are clearly defined grounds under which a person can become a permanent citizen. One of those grounds is marriage. If a person marries a citizen of certain country they gain the right become a citizen of their spouses country. Sadly however, there are people who will stop at nothing to gain citizenship to which they would normally not qualify, and there are others who see the chance of financial gain, who facilitate such marriages. In the UK, there are thousands of such fake "passport" marriages.  

On the other end of the spectrum is the PREVENTION of marriages for religious or cultural reasons. Apartheid laws in South Africa made it a criminal offence for people to marry people of a different race - that is so-called "mixed marriages".  I think the same was true under the Third Reich, and also in certain Southern States of the USA.  Church leaders preached against "mixed marriages" and quoted passages from the Bible to support their prejudice against these unions.  Fortunately, most places in the world have dispensed of these antiquated ideas, and in so far as race is concerned, people are free to marry whom they will.

Some people object to "inter-faith" marriages where the people of different religious backgrounds marry.  Christian/Jewish, Muslim/Christian, Muslim/Jewish, Catholic/Protestant, etc.  In the Bible, Paul writes that we should not be yoked together with unbelievers. (2 Cor 6:14) Does this mean that a Christian can never ever marry someone who is not a Christian? The thing is how can a person be sure that the person they are wanting to marry truly is a Christian and is not just saying they are a Christian because they want to be married? I suppose one can use the old Evangelism Explosion 3 question: If you die now would you be going to heaven? And if yes, why? However, we know there are a lot of people out there who can "talk the talk" but they don't "walk the walk." Thing is, at the end of the day, one cannot be sure, and one has to take a person's word for it.  Not only that, but was that meant to be injunction against Christians marrying non-Christians - there is a verse in the 1 Peter where Christian women married to non-Christian man was urged to live a life that would be a testimony to her husband and thus win him over to Christ.  There is another verse where it says that a non-Christian can leave a Christian, but that a Christian should not divorce a non-Christian purely on that basis. Some religions will tolerate a non-adherent being married to one of their faithful, provided the non-adherent converts to the religion.  Personally, I question the genuineness of the conversion if it is purely to make oneself marriageable to a person. I, for one would not convert to any other religion for ANY reason, because I believe what I believe. Equally, I would not want to put the person I marry under that kind of pressure. Of course I would want my spouse to share my faith in Jesus, but it should be because of who Jesus is, and not because of me.

I am not saying that conversions before marriages are not genuine conversions - that would be highly judgemental and improper, and, in many cases I am sure that the conversions are very heartfelt and true. The questions remains that in matters of faith, do both parties have to see eye to eye? Let us push the envelope out a bit further - assuming that both parties are Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) do they have to believe the same things about their religion or is there room for differences of opinion on questions of doctrine? Can a tongue-speaking Pentecostal marry a Roman Catholic who prays to the saints? Can a Calvinistic Presbyterian wed an Arminian Methodist? Can a baptised-by
-full-immersion Baptist be wedded to a baby-sprinkled-with-water Anglican? I'm sure you get my drift. I believe the answer is of course, YES! Not only can it happen, it does, over and over.  I am not going to be a Pollyanna and  pretend everything will naturally work out - I believe that inter-faith marriages have stressors that strain at the bonds that would bring a couple together - but the fact is, that if a couple can see past the religion - and love the individual, then the differences in faith can be worked out in the long run. Marriage is, after all for this life, and NOT for eternity - as Jesus clearly stated that marriages do not continue into the hereafter.  For further discussion of this aspect, look at the following website: Religious Tolerance

The story of Romeo and Juliet, was also about "forbidden love" between two families - who had some on-going feud. That was one of Shakespeare's tragedies. Another barrier that rears its ugly head is that of class or social status. On the one hand there is always that sneaking suspicion of the motives of the person set gain the most from the marriage that they are merely marrying for money/fame. It is very unusual for royalty to marry commoners. Even in the play, Master Page was suspicious of the motives of Fenton for wanting his daughter's hand in marriage. However, just as in Romeo and Juliet, where the couple can see past the differences and still love each other, it is often those that surround the couple that want to see the marriage breakdown and may make it their purpose to firstly prevent the marriage, and secondly, if that fails, meddle to such a degree, that they cause rifts in the marriage. This is where "in-law" problems often come to the fore. You often hear at wedding receptions, statements to the effect that it is not just about the bride and groom, but that two families are being united in the marriage. With the greatest of respect, I beg to differ - a marriage between two people is about the two people getting married, and choosing to share their lives thereafter.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Gen 2:24

There comes a time when other members of a person's family must withdraw themselves and allow the couple to make their lives together - and accept the decisions they make even if those decisions aren't those which they would make themselves. This is not to say that circumstances cannot arise where one's family must for a while take priority over one's partner, but such circumstances should, in my opinion, not be open ended - and even in such circumstances, the partner's needs should be considered, and communication should be open and honest between the partners.

There is one area in which I have no cut and dried answers as to what I think should occur, and that is in the case of people with special needs (learning difficulties) needing and wanting to get married. There are two sides to this discussion and they go around the question of the ability of an individual to give informed consent. In the UK, the law states that

People with learning disabilities have the same rights in law as anyone else to marry, have a civil partnership, or live together. Providing the person is over 16 years and has a general understanding of what it means to get married, he or she has the legal capacity to consent to marriage. No one else's consent is ever required. (NHS) - emphasis mine.

That may be the case, but for practical purposes, families and loved ones of people with learning difficulties, will be concerned that he/she is entering a relationship he/she will not be able to cope with or that he/she will be taken advantage of by the spouse. There are cases, where people with learning difficulties have been duped into entering marriages of convenience - so that the other party can obtain a visa or even citizenship.

Licensed to abuse: a question of dishonour

While every effort should be made for an individual with difficulties to get married, either to a person who is not got learning difficulties or a person who has, they must at the same time, as vulnerable adults, be protected against unscrupulous people who make take advantage of their limited ability to understand, to trick them into marriages that they neither want nor are in the person's best interests. Personally I don't quite know what to think about this issue. I would welcome people's comments.

Finally, I come with much hesitation and great trepidation to the topic of great controversy - that of same-sex marriage. I am going to address this topic, though I realise that even as I state my opinion, I will upset and probably disappoint a great number of my readers. In stating my opinion, I will try and set forth my reasoning as clearly as I can. I trust that for the most part, if you disagree with me, you will, at the very least agree to disagree, and not allow our diverging opinions to cause a dissolution of our friendship. I have no problem with you adding a comment to my blog or indeed my facebook page. I have set up my bog such that all comments need to be approved by me before posting - but you have my word that I will post every comment I receive unless it is abusing or uses inappropriate words - regardless of what opinion is being made.

I believe that homosexual men and women should have the same right to marry each other as heterosexual men and women. Notwithstanding that some Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexuals cannot be Christians, this does not give the Christian church a right to limit the rights of individuals (whether they regard themselves as Christians or not) to choose the partner with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives. I would go further to suggest that surely it is preferable for people who regard themselves to be in a committed relationship with one another (as signified by marriage) rather than living separately. Marriage laws are set up to protect the rights of both parties in that marriage, should it fail. Gay people should have access to such protections as well as straight people. In California, Proposition 8: which was voted for by the public and effectively banned same sex marriages in the state has been revoked and overturned on constitutional grounds. While I would be concerned if the right of Churches to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, that is the limitation of that right. A pastor with a marriage licence should, if he/she is willing, be able to perform a marriage right with same-sex couples if he/she has no objections to it. On the other hand, agents of the state such as marriage officers and magistrates should perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if they are called upon to do so. Some may feel that my feeling on this matter is at odds with my faith. I will simply state that I don't believe so. Firstly there exists a sizable number of Christians who don't believe that homosexuality is a violation of God's law. Secondly, regardless on my stand on the above issue, my morality has nothing to do with other's right to live according to their own conscience.

Men and women who are homosexual but are failing to acknowledge this publicly or even to themselves in some cases, may marry a person of the opposite gender in the futile attempt to change their sexual preference, or at the very least hide their same sex attraction (SSA) and may even have children. However many such marriages fail. The fallout is even more acute than in cases where a straight couple separate or divorce. The other partner may feel used and abused by the gay partner, and gutted that the love portrayed by the gay person to their spouse, may appear to have been a pretense, thus making it harder to bear. The aggrieved party may feel cheated even if the gay person had not actually cheated (had a relationship with someone else). Far more preferable is that a person finds the partner with whom they can connect emotionally, psychologically and sexually and that they can build a relationship based on honesty and trust.

My work is to help children with a specific type of Autism - known as Asperger Syndrome. There are a lot of sceptics in regard to conditions such as these, but believe me it is very real. I am by no means an expert - but learning more and more about it every day. The real experts are the parents of these children.

Asperger Syndrome is only one part of what is known as a spectrum disorder that is - there are different manifestations of the condition and it may affect people differently. There is no "cure" for Autism - the best we can do is control and minimise certain behaviours associated with the condition.

I include the following clip which can give you glimpse into the lives of parents whose children are autistic. Next time you are in a shop or some public place and a child kicks off and behaves "inappropriately" please don't be to quick to judge the parent - or the child for that matter - he or she might be autistic.

The children depicted in this clip are (as far as I can tell) not Asperger Syndrome Children but more what is known as "classic autism" .



If you would like to comment, or ask a question please feel free to add it. I or my many friends who are experts (see above) will do our best to answer.

I love clowns, don't you? They make us laugh with their slapstick silliness. I think there is a bit of clown in me - I just don't wear the make-up or the funny clothes. Isn't the whole point of a clown to evoke laughter and giggles from little ones. Well here is a story to make your hair stand on end!

Evil Clown Dominic Deville hired for stalking, threats and a pie in the face

| Metro.co.uk

My first question is: What kind of sick individual would hire this social misfit to wash their car, let alone interact with their children?

On first reading, I thought that his man was operating in the UK and my immediate reaction, as one employed in the education sector, is that this is surely illegal? Has this guy been CRB checked? Then, to my relief, I read he operates in Switzerland. Well It's still not good for the children in Switzerland.

• He sends chilling texts.
• Makes prank phone calls
• Sets traps in letter boxes
• He posts notes warning children that they are being watched; that they are going to be ATTACKED.
• The 'clown's one and only aim is to SMASH a cake into the face of his victim, when they least expect it, during the course of SEVEN DAYS.

Hands up everyone who enjoys being stalked? Thought so! Not only is being stalked NOT FUNNY, it is VERY DANGEROUS - ESPECIALLY WHEN TARGETED AT CHILDREN.

Some may accuse me of lacking a sense of humour. A joke that is at someone else's expense is not funny - it is dehumanising.

If PARENTS allow their children to be frightened to this extent, not only will that child feel very unsafe, but if a real threat were to take place, would the child feel that they could tell their mum or dad about it?

Let's take each one of those points above and analyse it:

He sends chilling texts - kids are bullied through texts these days - it is not funny. Often the bullying goes on undetected, because the child is too frightened or ashamed to talk to them about it.

Prank Phone calls: I don't know what this amounts too - but if done in combination with the other things it could put the child on edge.

Notes saying the child is being watched and is going to be attacked.

SMASHING a cake in the face when this is least expected. That sounds violent - maybe more violent than it is.

TRAPS in Letterboxes. - Well again - it could be very frightening for a young child.

There is a way to give a child a fright and not cross the line. You can bend over slightly make your hands like claws and say in a funny voice "I'm coming to get you!" The child will know - since THEY know who YOU are and that you love them, that they will be tickled but will not be hurt when you catch them. You will also know exactly how long to persist and if the child shows any distress you stop immediately. Also, it is wise, no essential, only to engage in this kind of play with a child if there are other adults present.

This man's service should fall into the category of ADULT ENTERTAINMENT, and thus be only permitted to target people OVER THE AGE OF 16.

Well I have sounded off about this - now send in the real clown to make us laugh and TRULY entertain us.

Streaks

White streaks in a blue sky
Phenomena of the modern age:
Jet planes travel far and wide
Piercing the ozone with noxious fumes -
An outrage!

White lines on a blue canvas
Modernity in landscape
Inaudible cacophony reflecting
Invisible damage to the atmosphere -
Ecological rape!

Black steaks on a green ground
Stretching across a nation.
Cobbled streets replaced by motorways,
Flattening and destroying all that lies in their paths -
Devastation!

Black lines on a green canvas
Modernity in landscape
Ceaseless roar of engines reflecting
the unremitting destruction of the planet -
No escape?

© 2010 J. F.

UNQUALIFIED

A few day's ago I put up as a status on my Facebook Wall the following:

Think of all the ordinary people He has used to turn the world upside down. But also consider how utterly unqualified so many of them were.

Noah got DRUNK.

Abraham was too OLD.

Jacob was a LIAR.

Gideon was AFRAID.

Rahab was A PROSTITUTE.

Jeremiah and Timothy were considered TOO YOUNG.

David had an AFFAIR.

Moses was a MURDERER.

Elijah was SUICIDAL at one point.

Jonah RAN FROM GOD.

Peter DENIED CHRIST.

The Disciples FELL ASLEEP while PRAYING.

The Samaritan Woman WAS DIVORCED five times.

Timothy had AN ULCER.

John the Baptist ATE BUGS.

And Lazarus WAS DEAD!

So what's your excuse?

I should like to credit the author of this which was not me, but Pastor Greg Laurie of Harvest Ministries.

However, what follows are my thoughts as a result.

The list of biblical people used above is impressive – there is only one other example that springs to mind and this particular person tried to use this “weakness” as an excuse, a cop out from service with of the King, but whose application for exemption refused. DO you know who I am speaking about? If you said Moses, you are spot on. He is listed above but not for the thing I am about to mention. Let us look at the Word of God together:

“One day Moses was tending the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian. He led the flock far into the wilderness and came to Sinai, the mountain of God. There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the middle of a bush. Moses stared in amazement. Though the bush was engulfed in flames, it didn't burn up. “This is amazing,” Moses said to himself. “Why isn't that bush burning up? I must go and see.”

When the LORD saw Moses coming to take a closer look, God called to him from the middle of the bush, “Moses, Moses!”

gHere I am!” Moses replied.

“Do not come any closer, the LORD warned. “Take off your sandals, for you are stading on holy ground. I am the God of your father – the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” When Moses heard this, he covered his face because he was afraid to look at God. Exodus 3:1-6

What follows is God's call of Moses to “active service. In the discourse I read three times, “but Moses Protested” (Ex 3: 11, 13, 4:1) and then – in Exodus 4:10

g

But Moses pleaded with the Lord, 'O Lord, I'm not very good with words. I never have been, and I'm not now, even though you have spoken to me. I get tongue tied, and my words get tangled.'

Then the Lord asked Moses, 'Who makes a person's mouth? Who decides whether people speak or do not speak, hear or do not hear, see or do not see? Is it not I the Lord? Now go! I will be with you as you speak and I will instruct you in what to say.'

But Moses again pleaded, “Lord, please! Send anyone else.”

So, it would seem that in God's eyes – Disability does not mean Inability. Last night, on Dancing on Ice, Heather Mills was voted off after many weeks of successful participation in this challenging figure skating competition. It was all the more challenging for Heather, for as you may know, she has one prosthetic leg.

I quote from the website:

In 1993, Heather lost the lower part of her left leg after being hit by a motorbike while crossing a road.

One of the main reasons Heather is doing the show is to give children with the same disability as her the inspiration to do things they might not think they're capable of.

I could point to other examples of people who overcome amazing odds to achieve something that others might believe was not possible. Sir Douglas Bader was British WWII hero who despite having lost both his legs in an accident in 1931, continued in 1939 in the Royal Air Force and he was shot down and taken as a prisoner of war by the Germans. I remember as a child watching a film about him and being very inspired.

Now I am going to share about a person I have only just found out about – as a result of a search on the Internet for the phrase: Disability does not mean Inability. His name is Emmanuel Osofu Yeboah. This is a young man who overcame terrible odds as disabled person in Ghana and proved that Disability does not mean inability. Please look at the following trailer of a film called Emmanuel's Gift.

Coming from Africa myself, I am aware that by and large there is a huge misconception about people with disabilities. Rather like Emmanuel's father, who seeing that his son was disabled at birth – ran away, many people have no understanding of disability. Young people with learning disabilities tied to trees or kept hidden away. I have no doubt that there are other parts of the world that have similar backward ideas. However this is not a rant against bad treatment of people with disabilities, but it IS about people rising above the odds and achieving when everyone (sometimes including the people themselves) says they can't. More importantly, it is a very Christian message about how God, is no respecter of persons – God does not discriminate against the disabled – why should we? It is also, how God can and does use people that some may think are 'unusable'.

Don't let anyone think less of you because you are young. Be an example to all believers in what you say, in the way you live, in your love, your faith and your purity. (1 Tim 4:12)

Paul's encouragement to Timothy was to not let anyone look down on him. That's the key. Part of that means believing in ourselves. God accepts no excuses, so it is onward and upward my friends.

During my training as a teacher, in studying about Inclusive Education, we learnt the phrase “Children with barriers to learning” (BtL) – but as I came to discover through the course material and through experience, Barriers (not only to learning), can and are overcome.

It is interesting that in a hurdles race, that it is the finish line that is important and not the hurdles on the track. While an athlete should try and clear the hurdles it is not the clearing of the hurdles that wins the race but crossing over the finish line first. It may be that we may have to find another way achieving what we set out to do, or what God has called us to do, but achievable it most certainly is.

If we read on in the story of Moses, God had was by no means surprised by Moses supposed inability to speak, and he provided him Aaron, his brother as a spokesman. Moses, despite his 'inability to speak' lead the people of Israel out of the bondage slavery in Egypt to the promised land.

I called this blog UNQUALIFIED - We live in a Qualifications-obsessed world. Although only a small minority of people actually go to university and earn degrees, it seems that every job one does needs some qualification. It doesn't stop there - now, a basic degree does not suffice - one needs to have a Master's or a Doctorate. Teacher's used to be trained in teacher training colleges and get "an education diploma" - but that no longer cuts the mustard - now there is talk of needing a master's degree.

Sorry for the little rebellion here, but given the high rate of employment, especial Youth Unemployment, (Remember 1 Tim 4:12) it is hard for young people who put in the offort over 3 or 4 years to attain their degree - while building up a debt of a student loan, to also realise that they may actually have no job at the end of the day. Okay - that's my politics out of the way

Qualifications Driven World we live in often disdains the "uneducated" - while paying lip-service to the notion of equality. This Qualification Driven World is very quick to tell people "You Can't" - they may couch it in more flowery speech and may try and distract you from your goal and tell you that you don't need to do whatever it is you have set your heart on doing or you feel called to do. They may want to keep that person with learning difficulties in sheltered employment - being kept busy with nothing of importance when that person has a vital role to play in society in ways we cannot begin to imagine.

What hurdles face you in your quest to achieve that which you set out to achieve - they are there to be overcome and you can overcome them - it may be that you face barriers in life - things that get in the way. They may be, as I have talked about here, physical or learning disabilities, they may be economic circumstances you find yourself in, they may be any number of challenges, but all of them are able to be overcome. You may be like Heather Mills, or Emanuel Osofu Yeboah or Douglas Bader (all of whom were/are amputees - this was not deliberate - it is something I have just noticed) or have have other challenges - and it means you have do things a bit differently, but no less gracefully or beautifully. I think the biggest barrier we need to overcome is ourselves and our own defeatist mentalities. We need to believe in ourselves.

When I was 11 or 12 I remember, reading a bumper sticker on my headmistress' car - Disability is not Inability. I had certain challenges and BtL to overcome - with the help of dedicated teachers I did, and it is now my dream to see many more young people achieve theirs.

Friends,

please watch this video.

Now - as you can imagine - those who know me - this has got me quite worked up. How is that person even a principal if they are getting so carried away as to call the police. Also, if the principal in this situation has lost all sense of proportion why are not the police taking a stand and refusing to pursue this case - they must get thousands of complaints every day that are non-starters and they simply refuse to pursue them. They are a waste of valuable police time that could be better employed pursuing real menaces to society. Also - they are supposed to prevent child abuse - not perpetrate it.

I really implore all readers of my blog - please stand up and make a noise on behalf of Zakh Price.

The man in this video has been diagnosed with Asperger's and yet he is a psychologist.

People with Asperger's Syndrome are not or need not be intellectually disabled. With the right support, like Dr. Dubin, they can be valuable members of our society contributing to the economy and making a valuable input in the areas of their speciality.

One feature of Asperger's Syndrome or Asperger Syndrome (AS) is the tendency to obsess or get intensely interested in one thing - at the total disregard of everything else. This can lead to misunderstanding amongst other people in society and the tendency to brand AS people as excentric, wierd, mad, etc. However, the ability to specialise should be seen as a strength as well.

As a Christian man, I would like to assure Zakh and Carole his grandmother, of my prayers. I pray that this fiasco is resolved quickly and that all the money that will be raised for legal expenses won't be needed but can instead be put towards Zakh's educational needs.

There is a facebook campaign that has been started for Zakh's situation.

Please read and respond.

The only thing that I disagree with the video I posted above is that I don't think Zakh's IQ should have been made public - it is not, in my opinion, a factor in the reaction that lead to these charges and that even if Zakh's IQ were were in the normal to high range his reaction would still be justified.

Please comment on this and Please circulate this to as many people as you possibly can.

It's been a long time since I last posted anything to my blog and since we are in a new year – I felt that it is as good an excuse as any to post another and make it a bit more current.

Firstly, to all my readers, Happy New Year! I hope you and yours will have a good one. I came home for Christmas – that is, I visited my family in Africa, and when I said say family, I mean ALL of them, and that is a lot. My neice got married and family and friends flocked from near and far to celebrate the marriage. The venue was simply awesome. I was able to join the festivities because my brother and his wife very kindly bought my air-tickets.

After the wedding we went back to my parents home and celebrated Christmas. Having been away from family for as long as I have, it is such a good feeling to be amongst them again. As I write, I sit on the deck of a beautiful beach home on the South Coast of KwaZulu-Natal. Yesterday we went to see a sight that I had not expected – a place called Oribi Gorge (which is near Port Shepstone). It is a most beautiful place. It is hard to capture in words the breathtaking views that we saw. However, as beautiful as it is, it is also incredibly nerve-wrecking. I am not sure of the depth of the gorge, but it is easily in excess of 100 m. I have been told that it is in fact nearer 300 m. and there is a sheer drop to the bottom. Introduce three little children who have a tendency to wander away from their parents and others who tempt fate by walking right up to the edge and you can get the picture. I am not that courageous – a 'cautious George' – only approached the edge on all fours and I lay flat on my stomach to peer over the edge. I never knew this place existed until yesterday.

Spending time at the coast we have of course been down to the beach. A couple of days before I got to the beach, my brother and his family went down. They were on the beach and were exploring in rock-pools – all of a sudden my brother heard a scream from his youngest (2 ½ years) and the rock-pool in which he was paddling had turned blood red. He had cut is foot on a piece of broken glass in the rock-pool. There was a very long laceration extending from just below his little toe and it required 13 stitches. How sad that someone else's thoughtlessness had to spoil my nephew's and his family's holiday.

Not to finish off on a sour note – my holday draws to a close and I gear up to go home, I will be sad to say goodbye, but I am comforted by the thought that back in England, I have friends who are looking forward to seeing me again.and I know that we will be doing many fun things together.

John and Edward Grimes

Probably the most cotrovertial of all the finalists in the UK X-Factor. Simon Cowell took an instant dislike to this duo – twin brothers from Lucan, Dublin. However, there is something about them that get the public voting for them.

While I'm enjoying the X-Factor when I get to see it, and I have my favourites (not telling) I was shocked and dismayed at the revelation concerning the two lads from Ireland that was revealed in an 'exclusive' scoop of a british newspaper – in a headline that practically filled the front page – “Twins seX Factor secret” - what is this dark secret – you may be wondering – well – here it is – they are virgins. How unheard of. How shameful. (I hope you hear my very sarcastic tone as you read this. )

The paper reveals that John had a girlfriend for about 3 days when he was 15 but that's it, and they are 'definitely virgins'. I think it is noteworthy to point out that the journalist had not derived this information directly from twins themselves but from kids (their contemparies) from the neighbourhood where they grew up. This weasel that calls himself a journalist did not have the courage to interview the twins themselves, but instead went snooping around the neighbourhood.

There was another article in the same newspaper, written by a different journalist who interviewed the twins' parents/father. This was a far better article. It was interesting to read that they were bullied and given a hard time at school, because they are different/not conventional.

Now I ask you – what relevance has this got to do with their singing ability. Why do we need to know about the sex-lives (or lack of them) in people who choose to entertain by singing. The newspaper article was practically mocking them for wanting to concentrate on their careers in pop-music and their sport.

Bearing in mind that they are only 18, is it necessary for them to have had girlfriends?

This country is reeling under the burden of teenage girls becoming pregnant and being single mums. God forbid that we should have some teen pop stars who are also virgins and role models.

As for their singing – well they are not my favourites, but I have to admit that I find their performances amusing and enjoyable – they are certainly full of life, and seem to be having a lot of fun. Why does EVERYTHING have to be about sex?

----

Post script: Watched the boys sing this evening on X-Factor - They sang the Ghost Busters Song - I thought they were great.

Community Service for Preacher who hit boys

I was flabbergasted today when I read this in the newspaper. A Muslim cleric allegedly assaulted the three boys, aged nine, 12 and 13 because they were giggling during his lesson. He hit them quite hard causing two of them to experience temporary hearing loss.

He was given a 250 hour community service sentence, but was not as far as I can tell banned from working with children. It was interesting that the article did not name the magistrate who was presiding in this case.

I feel that this sentence was effectively the magistrate winking at the man as he handed down something that cannot be called a sentence. I cannot help thinking that had this been a Christian pastor or Sunday School teacher, the sentence would have been a lot sterner.

I want to stress that I am not anti-Muslim, and have no problem with Muslims schooling their children in their religion. I also have no problem with them requiring a certain amount of discipline of the children. However, corporal punishment is illegal throughout the European Union and Muslims like every other citizen or resident should respect this law, and if they fail to obey the law they must face the prescribed sanctions. A judge or a magistrate should not be a "respecter of persons" when it comes to sentencing.

As always, I invite comments from my readers.

Make a Joyful Noise or just irritating the neighbours

In the London Lite of Thursday 8 October I came across an article entitled "Churchgoers are ordered to stop singing loudly" . The article stated that Immanuel International Church in Walthamstow has been ordered by the council to quieten down after complaints had been lodged by a local neighbour.

Was the neighbour just being cranky, or was his complaint religiously motivated since he is a Muslim? Pastor Dunni Odetoyinbo lodged an appeal through the court but this was rejected with costs and it has been restricted to a twenty minute interval on a Sunday during which they can play their music.

The pastor claims that the complaints are religiously based, " so as not to offend the Muslims" but the council denies that there was any religious aspect to this. There was one sentence that grabbed my attention in this article and it was as follows:

The church also claimed the council had "taken away its ability to praise God", and that its congregation had dwindled from 100 to 30 because of the restrictions.

This is completely ludicrous and so over the top. Christians for generations have faced far greater opposition than is the case here, and have managed to keep going and keep worshipping God. Is it truly their view that the only one can praise God is to shout to the heavens? Is God hard of hearing that He has to be shouted at? Did not the Prophet Elijah mock the prophets of Baal for their shouting and screaming, and sarcastically suggest they may need to shout a little louder so as to rouse their God? If we look at that account in the Bible we can clearly compare the conduct of the many prophets of Baal with that of the Prophet Elijah. They made a loud raucous noise, whereas Elijah said a quiet prayer, that I think perhaps only Elijah and the Almighty could hear. And yet the effective prayer of the righteous man achieved the result, for despite the Prophet Elijah's sacrifice being drenched with water, it was the sacrifice that was totally burnt up with "fire from heaven."

While I do agree that it is wonderful to be able to join in loud, joyful praise singing, with a congregation who love the Lord, it is not the ONLY way to express my love for Jesus. It is true that some churches can have an hour or more of this loud music booming out of their buildings. It is not acceptable. In addition to this, the preaching, which is invariably done using amplification (whether there is call for using such amplification or not) can also be heard a great distance from the church. Surely, a Christian leader should take into account the context in which that worship takes place. Any sound technician worth his or her salt should be able set output levels suitable to the venue.

Excessive noise can damage the hearing of those at the event, to say nothing of the negative impact it has on those on which is imposed, who have to endure the noise because of their proximity to the venue. 

Lack of consideration for one's neighbours displays a lack of love. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbour and though he didn't mean it to be quite so literal, I'm sure that his advice to this sister in the Lord would be to quieten down.

Many people associate loudness with anger. When one speaks loudly, it is often referred to as shouting. Not only does this place great strain on the speaker's vocal chords, but gives the impression to a listener that he or she  angry. It is also an ineffective communication technique, as after a short period of time, the listener stops concentrating and may lose interest. Yes, the occasional shouted word may be effective in grabbing a person's attention, but sustained shouting over a long period of time, is hard to listen to just as if I were to type this whole blog in capitals, which, ironically is referred to as SHOUTING, WOULD MAKE IT HARD TO READ.

While anger when properly motivated is not sinful, the ongoing anger suggested by continual shouting, is indicative of wrath, a definite sin according to scripture. Yes, it may be that the pastor is not angry, but the loud volume of the preaching, if the report is to be believed would certainly beunsettling on the spirit. It is equally true to say that volume does not necessarily correlate with anger – but by and large the more angry one is, the louder one speaks.

I know of the Scriptures that say:

Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye nations

Shout unto God with a voice of Triumph.

But the Word of God also speaks of times of quiet:

Be still and know that I am God.

"Go out and stand before me on the mountain," the Lord told him. And as Elijah stood there, the Lord passed, and a mighty windstorm hit the mountain. It was such a terrible blast that the rocks were torn loose, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire there was a sound of a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and stood at the entrance of the cave. (1 Kings 19:11-13)

 

I am not suggesting for a moment that we need to take a vow of silence, or that it is unscriptural to worship with loud music, but as with everything in life we need to avoid the extreme of only having that way of worshipping the Lord. 

I was saddened to read that the the congregation has dwindled from 100 to 30. That is a very radical loss, and if its only due to the noise abatement law, then that speaks volumes about the level of faith of those who were fellowshipping there or to their reasons for attending church. The thought that people feel that they cannot praise God unless they are doing it at the tops of their voices is sad indeed. Please don't blame the council. They are the local authority who have to enforce the law and if the law states for very good reasons that one may not disturb neighbours through excessive noise, it is up to the local authority to investigate, determine that it is excessive, take whatever initial steps

to remedy the matter, but if the nuisance persists, to take whatever legal action may be required. Nowhere in the bible does it state that Christians are not subject to the the laws of the land. We are told that except where such laws would cause us to contravene God's higher law, we ought to submit to the authorities.

We are coming up to the month of November, when, in America, Thanksgiving is celebrated. Thanksgiving has its roots in the Pilgrim fathers and their families emigrating from England to America, so that they could practice their religion as they believed God would have them do. These pious men did not deem it appropriate to engage or argue with the authority, which at that time was the king, but rather fought with their feet and went to a new country. What I am about to type may be perceived by some to be racist. It is not and I trust that you will see what I am trying to say here. The affected church, Immanuel International Church, is probably largely attended by Nigerian and West African people. Loud music, as was described in the article seems to be a feature of worship in such churches. Clearly in the home countries of these people, this style of worship is not uncommon and is regarded as normal. I can therefore well imagine that it came as something of a shock to them when the English authorities asked them to desist with the load music and preaching, and I can well imagine that their initial reaction may have been one of defiance – they can't tell us to be quiet. However, when living in a community that is not your own, you sometimes are limited as to the extent that you can practice your own cultural traditions. If the people of Immanuel International Church feel so strongly about their need to worship loudly for extended periods, perhaps they have to return to their own countries so that they are no longer subject to English laws. Alternatively, they may choose to remain, and realise that though the exuberance of their worship may be curtailed, the genuineness of it and the depth cannot and need not be

reduced.

The sacrifice of the Pilgrim Fathers – also known as the Puritans – was such that they had to give up on the land of their birth, and go to an undeveloped and unchartered land and start from scratch. It's a hard thing to be exiled from your country for whatever reason, and I speak as one who knows that feeling. I'm sure that there were those men who when faced with that choice, flee to practice the Puritan religion or remain and be a "Conformist" decided that they would sooner remain – and re-enter the established church. The persecution that the non-conformists endured because they did not believe as the established church insisted they should believe would have been terrible. Even to this day,

Christians in some countries have to worship in secret. I wonder if they ever sing hymns or songs, if they do, they do so with quietened voices, so as not to draw attention to themselves. John the Baptist said, when speaking about Jesus – He must increase, and I must decrease.

We are not to draw attention to ourselves as Christians, but our actions should draw attention to Jesus. There is freedom of religion in this country, but this does not mean that religious groups and institutions are exempt from every law. As far as I know churches are exempt from paying of taxes, however, some church leaders are using this exemtion to the extreme in order to avoid paying tax themselves. This selfish attitude is short-term gain for long tem pain. If it is found that too many church leaders use this exemption dishonestly, the long term effect will be that they all will have to pay taxes. In a similar way, failure to respect laws in regard to noise abatement, may result in churches being closed down by authorities or being refused permission to congregate in certain areas. The Bible says we must not give the devil a foothold, and I realise that this is referring to

compromise in terms of our personal lives. However, I think that situations like the one described in the article also give the devil a foothold as people will use such things as an excuse to denigrate the church in general, and thereby denigrate Christ.