Just Kidding

In the USA, there was a strong earthquake that shook even Washing DC, and while I write this blog people on the East Coast of USA, including the Big Apple have been very adversely affected by Hurricane Irene (ironic name since Irene means peace). Really quite frightening stuff. In two weeks time, NYC and Washington DC and the nation as a whole will be commemorating the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Centre and damaged the Pentagon ten years ago and took in excess of 3000 lives on the day, to say nothing about the thousands of lives lost since in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most people, most decent people realise that cracking jokes about these things is not appropriate. However, you have some individuals, who steam right ahead and they make what they refer to as jokes that are in such bad taste. British Comedian Frankie Boyle is one such person. He somehow thinks that ridiculing people with Down Syndrome, AIDS, etc. 

Frankie Boyle is not the one to have got my blood boiling this but one of the Republican "Tea-party" would-be Presidential candidates, Michelle Bachmann. I do not actually believe that when she made her offensive comments she was of the mind that it was some kind of joke, and certainly at the time, she did not let on that she saw a funny side to earthquake and hurricane - she seemed very much in earnest, about her belief that God was sending a message, but when she realised just how unpopular her comments were - or maybe when her advisers told her that she was suffering from verbal diarrhoea that she issued a statement that she was only kidding.

She obviously has no clue how implausible that is, and even if that were the case, how in appropriate to be cracking jokes about things like this when people have lost lives and people's homes and businesses have been utterly destroyed. Is this something that we can all laugh about. Hardly! So why was she kidding? No, i watched the clip where whe was saying these things that she said she was just kidding about, and she clearly believes that these geological and meteorological events were God's megaphone telling the President that he is getting it all wrong. 

Being a student of theology, I am aware that when a person claims to speak for God they are taking on the role of a prophet. Now in the Bible and today their are two kinds of prophets spoken about. There are the true prophets, like Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, John the Baptist, and many others, but they were and sadly are vastly outnumbered by FALSE PROPHETS, who claim to speak the words of God, but are not. 

If you, in speaking try to represent what you are saying, as coming from the throne of God, and it turns out you are wrong whether you deliberately lied, or simply "got your wires crossed" you still fall into the category of False prophet. The Old Testament prescription for those found to be false prophets was severe - death by stoning. Now I would not advocate that Ms Bachmann get stoned (though with some of the far-fetched things she is said have uttered, it would not be to hard to believe that she is stoned (in the modern sense of the word.)

If, as I suspect, she genuinely believed what she was saying about these events being God's message to America, why was she so quick to retract this when she realised that it was not well received by her audience. The prophets of Old often had to speak out against corruption in high places, and in society in general, and it never was popularly received. Back then, as they do now, people only want to hear happy platitudes about everything being okay, and your behaviour no matter how vile and beneath contempt, being completely acceptable. Often speaking the Word of God into a situation will make you very unpopular as a prophets and can be very costly, and I mean it can even cost you your life. Just ask Jeremiah and John, the Baptist. Being a prophet is diametrically opposite to being a politician. In order to be a politician, you HAVE to seek popularity. That is the only way to get into office (unless of course you have a way of corrupting the voting system. The prophet on the other hand will speak out what he/dhe believes t be Go'd word in a situation, and will stand by what he was saying even when the highest authorities, including religious leaders, and society at large threaten dire consequences if one doe not retract the comment. Martin Luther, spoke vehemently against the abuses of the Church and it came down to the Pope at that time demanding that he disavow his statements on threat of being excommunicated (th most serious sanction a church could impose, his response was "here i stand, I can do no other" and he was summarily dismissed from his high office in the Catholic Church. 

I would not suggest that her words were malicious lies spoken to generate hate and resentment towards Mr. Obama, but a genuine conviction that the storms were God's messenger think that she genuinely believed what she was saying. However, I do not believe that that these sorts of catastrophic events are used by God in this way. They are just part of nature. I do believe, as the Bible says, the judgement day will come and every individual will face judgment. We are told in the Bible that ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALLEN SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD and the wage for sin is death. However we are talk that God so loved the World, that he GAVE his only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believes on him with not perish but will have eternal life,and that the GIFT of God is eternal life. We are told in Scripture that we are to go into all world and preach the GOOD NEWS. So, ultimately, every individual must give account and then repent of wrong doing. Thus even though she believed it to be true, Michelle Bachmann has been a false prophet by representing our God and bring His name into disrepute. 

The "I was just kidding" bit was an effort to withdraw her comments but it is still making God to be a liar. If she lacks the courage of her conviction, albeit weird convictions, how can she lead a country?

I'm sure there's more that could be said on this topic of misappropriated humour, and false prphesy, I shall end now and invite comments from my friends, whether you agree or vehemently oppose what I have said. I publish comments that are on topic, and deviod of unseemly language or personal attacks. 

What is a fundamentalist?

With the disaster of events in Norway, I have heard this question being asked in two different ways, and thought that it is an important question to address. When you think of a fundamentalist, who is it that you see in your minds eye? Do you regard yourself as a fundamentalist? Why? I believe like many words in the English language, this word has metamorphosed over recent years.

As young Christian, being a fundamentalist was not necessarily a bad thing, but since September 11th 2001, being a fundamentalist was definitely not a good thing and people who would have happily admitted to being a fundamentalist, would deny it vociferously now.

From the perspective of Christians, after the 9/11 attacks in the USA and the 7/7 attacks in London, and the attacks in Spain and in Mumbai, it was easy to differentiate our enthusiasm for Christianity from the "extremism" of Islam or any other religion for that matter. We even allow ourselves to think that people who perpetrate these evil acts claim to act in the name of their religion, that they truly represent the religion and the god they claim to follow. 

However, the moment someone who claims to be a Christian, carries out an atrocity like the one in Norway, we immediately want to disown the individual and claim that this person could not possibly be a true Christian. We conveniently forget that there were many Muslim people with more moderate beliefs who protested that the suicide bombers were not true Muslims and that Islam is a religion of peace, and the very word Islam means peace. At the time we poo-pooed the notion. However, we would be rightly offended if someone suggested Bleivik was representative of what you as a Christian. 

It is easy, when a bad thing is done to jump to the conclusion that the person or people who perpetrated the acts are "others" - i.e. different in one or many ways. It is a natural Human urge to want to disown people who do bad things. We do this in many ways. He is not of our religion. he is not of our country - he's a FOREIGNER. He's not of our racial or cultural group. When enquiries into the 7/7 bombings, it came as something of a shock in the UK that many of the bombers were born in the UK and attended UK schools. How was it that these young British-born Muslims would go to the extent of murdering other British people iin the name of their religion. 

However, with the terrorist acts in Norway the people had to accept that the accused is as Norwegian as they are. 

However what we are discussing is "What is a FUNDAMENTALIST?"

The original connotation of fundamentalism was the notion of getting back to the "fundamentals" of our faith. (I am speaking specifically about Christians here) and so, a fundamentalist Christian subscribes to what they believe are the "definitive beliefs" of Christianity. They would say, that unless you subscribe to all off these specific beliefs, without exception, you are not a genuine Christian. Here are some of the "definitive beliefs" :

1. Belief in the Trinity - belief that there is One god existing in Three Persons - The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.
2. The full and literal belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, the Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, and the eventual return of Jesus Christ.
3. The belief that Salvation is obtained ONLY by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
4. The inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures in the form of the Bible - consisting of 66 'books' - 39 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament. With this is the belief in the literal reality of the miracles described therein - e.g. Creation, Parting of the Red Sea at the time of the Exodus, Universality of the flood (Noah), Jesus' miracles, etc. 

I probably have missed things out, but you get the idea. I personally subscribe to points 1, 2 and 3. Point 4 would be a matter of discussion for me, but by and large I believe that the Bible is true. However, if a person subscribes to all of these and more (which they regard are "deal breakers" as far as Christianity is concerned), is not a problem. However, holding to a set of beliefs and values and living accordingly is not a problem. It is when the individual feels that it is not enough - but that EVERYONE should subscribe to these beliefs, when we have a problem.

If we get down to what the root of the meaning is - now reverting to generalities in terms of religion - the notion is that a fundamentalist is getting back to the "fundamentals". What are fundamentals? They are those basic principles of the religion that define its adherents. I've listed some of those fundamentals of the Christian belief.

The problem is, like most things in life religion adapts and changes over time, but people do not change at the same rate. There are those who believe we need to adapt and change with the times and will embrace these changes enthusiastically. These people say that those who don't want to change are wrong and conversely, those who see these changes as compromises and are naturally resistant to any such change (fundamentalists), and will label the modernist (or those keen to embrace change) as liberals - with the implication that the person is NOT a true adherent of their religion.

Many of the internal conflicts and discrepancies within a religion comes down to this "old versus new" argument. Sometimes though, I think that people who THINK they are fundamentalists would more accurately be described as a TRADITIONALIST. Growing up in the 70's when "Christian choruses" were all the rage, and gainin g in popularity, there were those, who insisted that nothing but HYMNS shoulod be sung in Church and that these "happy clappy" choruses were bringing down the tone. The solution in many churches was to have services dedicated to traditional service - in which it would be quite acceptable to sing:

Now thank we all our God, with heart and soul and voices...

but not

Clap your hand, all ye people, shout unto God with a voice of triumph...

What is the difference - the first was written a long time ago, and is sung to organ music, while the latter (the chorus of it - as it is directly out of Scripture) was written more recently, and people actually raise their hands, clap their hands and SHOUT. Sadly these differences have caused Christians to leave fellowship, and fight.

Again, there is nothing wrong with being a traditionalist, but when it comes to a point where people decide that everybody has to ascribe to the same traditions, and to want to do things differently is somehow a rejection or a walking away from one's faith.

Tradition is a good thing, We can learn so much from old ways, but there are traditions that are not good and are better assigned to history where it belongs. Let us look at the tradition of a man owning his wife as chattel. There are many traditions which are linked to this - like in the marriage vows where a bride would vow to obey her husband. There will be those among you who read this blog who feel that that should still be the case. Some of you will be ready to quote verses of Scripture to defend this mentality. However, by and large society has moved on, and the notion of equality of the sexes is widely accepted and considered the NORM.

However, on reflection, as I've listened to discussions on radio to radio we should perhaps avoid describing the terrorists as "fundamentalist". They are not defending the fundamentals of faith, but they are defending their tradition. They may fight under the banner of "Islam" or under the banner of "Christianity" but what they are "defending" is not the fundamentals of their religion, but their own lifestyles. The 9/11 bombers, the 7/7 bombers, Bali, Spain, claimed to be Muslim. But They do not represent true Islam. Breivik claims to be a fundamentalist Christian, but his violent act is exactly the opposite of what we stand for a Christians.

I think that the Church must be willing to either stop referring to people as Muslim terrorists as if their terrorism is truly represented the Islamic faith, or be willing to refer to Breivik as a Christian terrorist. It should be cut both ways. I've heard people phoning up the radio station and assert that the Quran taught that such violence was right. However these people are not Islamic Scholars interpreting their own Scripture, but non-Islamic people who have heard these ideas talked about and taken them without question. It's easy to believe that what other people do is evil.

Well, I think in conclusion, I would say that it is not FUNDAMENTALISM that is the issue, but being an EXTREMIST.

Your Wish is My Command

Have you ever written something, not being one hundred percent sure or even one percent sure where it will lead you – well this is such a piece. I have just been reading the Bible and I came across an account that puzzles me. It is the story of when three of David’s mighty men, take enormous risks to get David a cup of water from the well outside Bethlehem, and when they return, he pours it out on the ground. Well that is the story in brief. I will quote the story as it appears in the Bible but first, I need to put it in the context that it appears in Scripture.  It First Chronicles 11 – and list of David’s mighty men (of which the THREE were the mightiest) and their brave actions in fighting for David.

1 Chron 11:15-19

¹⁵ Three of the thirty chiefs came down to David to the rock at the cave of Adullam, while a band of Philistines was encamped in the Valley of Rephaim. ¹⁶ At that time David was in the stronghold, and the Philistine garrison was at Bethlehem. ¹⁷David longed for water and said, “Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!”¹⁸ So the Three broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out to the LORD. ¹⁹ “God forbid that I should do this!” he said. “Should I drink the blood of these men who went at the risk of their lives?” Because they risked their lives to bring it back, David would not drink it. (NIV)

So now – I think you can see why I called this piece “Your wish is my (or in the case of the story, our) command.  There are a few puzzling aspects from this story – and we shall explore them. I cannot guarantee that I can shed light on any of it – but I will try. At the nub, what it is that I want to understand, is what can I learn from this story – why did God move that this story was included in the account of the “exploits of David’s mighty men”.

First off, why did these three men go in the first place? Was it really a case of “Your wish is our command?” What is without doubt, these men were very devoted to their leader David. Remember that at the time this took place, David was NOT King, and as far as natural lineage, not even an heir to the throne. Saul was the king and ruler in Israel, and at this point he was a tyrant, prone to fits of rage and jealousy. David was, in his eyes, the arch enemy. But he was God’s choice. These men were drawn to David, not through compulsion of duty, but because they believed in his cause. These men, were ready to join the “struggle for liberation” if you like, and David was their leader. These three, who were described as the mightiest of the mighty men were attentive to their leader and no task, it would seem was beneath them. David wanted water, they didn’t choose a junior warrior to get him water, they went themselves. But did they need to go at all? I don’t know. David had not given a command – it wasn’t some test of strength or bravery on David’s part – he merely said that it would be nice to have some water from the well outside of Bethlehem. David was born in Bethlehem and when he looked after the sheep on the hills around the town, no doubt he would sate his thirst with water from that well. It had sentimental connections to his childhood.  He might have been thinking how ironic it was that they were so close to the place where he used to draw out that water from the well, and yet unable to go to it because of the presence of the enemy. Did he intend that three of his mighty men – men he relied on in the fight against Saul’s men – would go, endangering themselves, to get him some water from the well? I think – based on his reaction – it was clearly NO. So why did they go? Was it bravery or stupidity? Was it not both? In order to get that precious cup of water, they would have had to go against the Philistines and fight them off – literally go into battle.

We are advised to “choose our battles wisely” – I wonder if these three mighty men chose a wise battle in this case? I have no doubt that what they were doing was well meaning – David would have realised that too, but was it what they should have been doing – was it the most productive use of their time?

Was David perhaps foolish in actually saying out loud what he yearned for? Should he have just kept his thoughts to himself? I remember as a child we used to visit the home of Chinese friends of ours. They were such loving people. The wife used to work as a pattern maker in the factory my father ran. When we visited our home we had to be careful about what we would admire as she seemed to think that whatever we said “that is nice” that we wanted to take it home. – We were merely admiring it. She would try and give us those things.  It might have been a cultural thing, I don’t know, but we soon learnt that we would admire things in such a way that she would know that we did not expect or want her to give it to us. However, I don’t think that David did anything wrong by saying that he would love to have a cup of water from the well. Perhaps the men interpreted his statement as a command. What puzzles me is why they didn’t clarify with David as to why he would make such a command in light of the clear danger that they faced. Was it a fool’s errand?

Here is my best shot at trying to understand what God may be saying through this:

We need to distinguish in life between the essential and the additional. Some people have  a “The Sky’s the limit” mentality – where they are not satisfied to just get by, they want it all. That is all very well, and in some cases, they are blessed to achieve this. They are the type of people who will say “never say never” and “you can do anything you want to in life” – go-getters. However, while we admire people who rise over what seem insurmountable odds to achieve amazing things, it is because of the unusualness of their achievements that we admire them. If everybody could achieve what they achieved, nobody would be impressed. I wonder if God is not saying to us stop trying too hard. Those three guys didn’t have to go for that cup of water – David would not have thought any less of them because they went for the cup of water. God doesn’t think less of you or me because we do not achieve whatever we set our sights on to achieve. We hear a lot of talk these days of people “lacking faith” because they do not become a millionaire by the time they are forty, or because they are not the captain of a national sports team, or even in the team. Young people, year on year, commit suicide because they did not achieve the results they hoped for or expected, in their school exams. We have a mentality that says that unless you have achieved the best, it was not worth the effort.

I am reminded of a time when I was in high school. Frankly – I am not sporty – I lack hand-eye co-ordination so bat and ball games such as cricket and tennis, I was hopeless at, and I am not extremely strong. However, at the school a LOT of emphasis was placed on sporting prowess. It really bothered me that I was not good at sport and was consequently looked down upon (or that is how I perceived it) because I couldn’t prove myself in that sphere. Every year, like all schools in Zimbabwe, they had their Interhouse Athlitics Competition. All the usual track and field events were included. In the run up to the big day, each “head of house” would call all the students who were in that house team and we were put through our paces and heats were run to see, who was the best in each specific discipline, and they were selected to represent the house in the main competition. However, because they believed that it was important that EVERYONE should be participating in some event, those who failed to shine in any event, were made to run in what was called the “Rabble’s mile” or some such disparaging term (I’m sure that wasn’t the official title, but basically that is how it was perceived by the participants – the “wasters” who aren’t good at anything – the rubbish). Far from being motivating, we were made to run 1500 m. round the track at the hottest time of the day, during the hottest days of the year. We were an act for the entertainment of the elite. Laughed at and jeered. Every participant got a point provided you finished – so if you slugged your guts out and collapsed just before the finish line – that was it – no point at all. (I don’t know if they were that brutal!)  Well I was a runner in this race year after year, and each year – I would say to myself – next year I won’t be in this race. There were those who couldn’t care less, but I hated that race and everything it stood for. So when the next year swung round I would participate with gusto in all the heats and throwing and jumping events. But each year there were those who could run faster, jump higher or further or throw further. And each year I would be back in the rabble mile. That was until one year, I think one of the last I would be participating in this circus they called a sports day. I had been making a particular effort in PE, and when we had cross-country. I was not great at cross-country – I wanted to do Cross country because my big brother was a cross country runner, but I lacked the stamina to run the distances they set. Well this particular year, during class physical education lessons I really did my best. There were shirkers in my class who liked to lark about when sent off on a run, and they realised that it was not a good thing for the teacher to see me coming in before them (a bit of a tortoise and hare situation.) Well, they tried to hold me back. However thanks to the vigilance of my PE teachers, that nonsense was stopped. When the sport’s day was coming up, I determined, like every year that I would try and get into some event. As it happened, this year, I managed to come second in the 800 m. Heats, and I was selected to run for the House. At long last I was out of the “Rabble Mile” – I was so happy.  I think there those on my team who were not sharing my elation – for them it was DISASTER! We may miss out on 7 vital points. To their credit – the teachers selected me – despite probably realising that I was not their best hope – and that my achievement in the heat was probably more a fluke than anything else, but they had set a rule for selection and I had met the criteria on the day, and so I was selected. Also – to their credit – none of the students tried to persuade me to give up my place in the race. Some might have thought so on the day – I don’t know perhaps some students might have gone to the sports master asking him to replace me with them, if they did he had the good grace not to and not to tell me either. If they had, I would have refused (and probably been accused of not being team spirited). I lined up on the starting line, and listened for the starter’s gun. Bang – I ran as fast as I could, probably too fast for a middle distance track event, and the inevitable happened – I ran out of energy, but by sheer determination I kept running (well it was probably a slow trot by this stage). I came last. I was exhausted but also elated and I so enjoyed the Mile that year – from the benches. You know what I still got the team 1 point for participation that year but that 1 point was worth far more to me than the 1-points I got in the previous years that I was one of the rabble. Was it a waste of time that I ran in it? NO – it wasn’t for me. I didn’t win THE race, but I won my own race. Should there have been a “Rabble Mile” (or whatever they called it)? If you asked me before I might have said “No, stupidest idea ever”, but thinking about it, perhaps if it were not that dastardly race, I might not have aspired to participating in the 800 m. So what that I cannot run as fast as others, jump as high or as far as others, throw a javelin or whatever, I have areas of strength, which over the years I have discovered. So – wow – I told you I didn’t know what direction this Bible would take me. I think, I can summarise, if we do our best in the circumstances, that is all that God asks us to do.

David was shocked when these men appeared before him with this cup of water for him which they risked life and limb to obtain. His reaction was odd – why did he not drink it, or even offer to share it with the three young men who had gone to get it. Why pour it out on the ground – the Bible says he poured it out as an offering to the Lord. But That was not what the three men who went to fetch it had in their minds. I wonder if they thought he was a tad ungrateful? Did David react fairly? Are we allowed to ask that question? Was his reaction considered or a knee-jerk reaction? Was he perhaps actually angry with the three men for taking unnecessary risks? Perhaps he wanted to teach them a lesson? Have you ever had a surprising and disappointing reaction to something you have done for someone, that you thought would please them, but that they were not impressed with, or actually rather put out by it? We don’t know how the three men would have reacted to it, as we are not told? They may have been annoyed, angry, disappointed, demotivated – well not demotivated because they remained his mighty men.  How do you react when mistreated by someone in authority or to whom you look up to? I’m not saying that David mistreated his men – I am just thinking that they may have felt mistreated, unappreciated, but they got over it. It’s easy to get into a “woe is me” mentality – but we need to realise that, we cannot stay there.

If circumstances in your life are rough right now and you are feeling overwhelmed maybe we can learn a few things from this – here are my ideas – feel free to add in yours:

1. Choose your battles – sometimes something simply is NOT worth the effort.
2.  Do your best in the circumstances and don’t be downhearted if you cannot be THE BEST. Don’t let failure caused you to become demotivated. Pick yourself up and keep pushing.
3. Don’t try to do it alone – Three mighty men went to get a cup of water. One of them might have thought he could go alone, but he didn’t. When circumstances are difficult – it is not a shame to ask for help.
4. You may not get the reaction you expected or were hoping for. You may be disappointed when you set out to do something nice for someone that they don’t appreciate it. Don’t allow that disappointment to develop into bitterness – forgive them – even if they don’t think that they have done anything wrong, and move on.

Any other ideas? Do you agree with me? Please comment.

Baldness & Bulimia; Botox & Boobs

I am thinning on top - I have known this for some time and frankly - it is no big deal to me - From photographs I see that both my grandfathers were bald. I was reading an article in the Daily Mail today about Hair Transplants and clearly for the author of the article, Jason Gardiner, the thought of losing his crowning glory, was more than he could cope with - he however is in the privileged position of being able to afford a hair transplant. I am pleased for him that it worked not only in terms of its success as a procedure, but the resultant psychological effect. 

 

However, I am not merely commenting on a rather humdrum boring article about a hair-transplant operation - but on the attitudes of some of the people choosing to comment on it. I have submitted a comment, and I share it with you below. 

 

The hair-raising truth about my £21,000 cure for baldness, by Dancing On Ice judge Jason Gardiner

 

Read more: 

 

Stuart said:

Baldness looks awful and is a look best suited to thugs! (comment edited) - Stuart, Caerphilly, 18/6/2011 09:50

 

 I responded:

 

Stuart - that is a very inflammatory and unfair comment. Like there is no thug who has a full head of hair. Jason has the good fortune of having the money to get the problem fixed. The majority of us have to accept that that is nature taking its course. For some, men, women and children, baldness is the sad side-effect of cancer treatment and no laughing matter. Imagine having to be the parent who has to see his or her child's beautiful hair shorn off, rather than have them go through the agony of seeing it fall out on their pillow. I have not been through that agony- but I know of a brave man, who knowing his little four year old had to undergo the indignity of chemo therapy - when the parents decided to shave his hair off - had his own head head shaved at the same time, to distract the little boy and reassure him that it was going to be ok. Some thug, hey Stuart?

 

It's not only baldness that attracts people's nastiness. people who have astigmatisms (such as a squint) or are albino, or have a large and noticeable birth mark. People who are unusually tall or short, people who have "buck teeth" etc. It's a crying shame that people are so unfeeling that they do not hesitate to label and discard people who they do not think fits the "norm". I know and could tag (but won't) a great number of my friends, who, for one reason or another, can say that they have been affected by these prejudices. 

 

This week on the radio, I heard that they have found that BOYS as young as 10 and 11 suffering from Bulimia because of bullying at school. Bulimia mainly affects girls, who have a media image that brainwashes them into believing that they are too fat. This same phenomenon is affecting boys too now (1 in 10 approx are boys). One brave young man phoned into LBC and told his story that at 15 or 16, his mother told him that he would "never find a wife" if he was that fat. That was the trigger to his bulimia. Although he had overcome the issue - one could hear in his voice that he was still hurting. Read this link

 

 Not long ago, I was horrified to read the account of a mother who was giving her "beauty pageant" daughter of 8 years old Botox injections.(It turned out to be a hoax) I heard of another mother who had given her presumably flat-chested little seven year old, a voucher for when she turns 16 to have "breast enhancement" operation. My head spun with the wrongness of both of these mothers and the dire psychological damage (and physical harm in the case of the Botox) being done to these girls. The stupidity of the mothers concerned. I'm only "picking on" the mothers in these cases because medias focus was on the mother and I am presuming that there was no father figure in the little girls' lives. Also, sexist though it may sound, since they were girls you would have though that the mothers would show the necessary sensitivity and stability and know what is suitable for them and what isn't.

In all the situations mentioned above, the bottom line is WHAT WE LOOK LIKE AND HOW WE ARE PERCEIVED BY OTHERS. It's easy to say - ignore what others say and think about you - it doesn't matter - but rightly or wrongly - what others think of us and the way we look is important. Where an opinion is shared with love and a view to help, that a person may present themselves in the possible light - then it is a good thing. We all get a boost when someone compliments our looks - but if people make scathing remarks about things we cannot do anything about - it hurts and causes damage. 

I not only would welcome comments on this article - I would request comments. I also invite you to repost this article on your pages and invite your friends to post their comments to my blog. Do not restrict your comments to Baldness, Boobs, botox or Bulimia, but any issue that affects one's body image.

Joking about children with disabilities.

Twice in ONE DAY. This morning I turned my radio on and Nick Ferrari (of LBC) was talking about the situation where so-called comedian Frankie Boyle made what he thought was a joke about the 8 year old disabled son of Katie Price aka Jordan.I will not repeat what Frankie said as it is too vile. Suffice it to say that I did not find it funny.  Channel 4 - on which the offending joke was aired refuses to take any action whatsoever. 

Then I go online and look at the Daily Mail website and I came across the following story.

Disabled children applying for bus passes 'labelled mongs and mingers on council's wall of shame'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385151/Council-staff-wall-shame-mock-pictures-disabled-children.html#ixzz1LsmljIB8

I am flabbergasted - first of all, WHY would people choose to pick on innocent people. This kind of teasing is pitiful - even when done by children who don't know any better - but adults? Especially people in the public eye.

Children with the kinds of disabilities like those Harvey are by nature usually the complete opposite of wolves like Frankie Boyle. I have worked quite a lot with children on the Autistic Spectrum. I realise that they are different and can at times be difficult - embarrassing even, but they do not mean it personally and if you take time to get to know them, they can be fantastic friends. I just wanted to post this thought because it is getting my goat.

--

John C. Fairlamb

Bally Springboks

I went to watch a show at the Royal Opera House Yesterday. It's called Giselle. I have to admit that I didn't know much about this story, and so I figured I would just go along and find out what it is all about! Those of you who thought I was going to talk about Rugby, Gotcha - No, this is a ballet, that is a style of dance. Ballet is a bit like watching an old Chinese Kung-Fu movie - without subtitles in English - you have to suss it out from what the people do on stage. 

Now I don't know the story of Giselle, but this is what I worked out from what I saw yesterday. It gets a bit confusing so you need to read carefully.

There is this chick called Giselle - I think that's French for Gazelle - you know, like a springbok - geez - she could jump like a Springbok - I reckon she could make a pretty hot hurdler! Maybe even clear the fences in the Grand Nation. Any way there are these two guys, Albrecht & Hilarion, who both like this chick, if you get my drift. Giselle, or "Springy" as I like to call her, has the hots for Albrecht. Who can take an oke called Hilarion seriously, now I ask you? Problem is that while Springy is a peasant, Albrecht is a toffee nose. (Shame it's not his fault - don't laugh at him - he didn't choose his parents). Hilarion is a forester - which is like saying he's the garden boy - only it is not a garden it's a forest.  Poor Albie has to marry this chick who is well-loaded, but looks like the back end of a bus. Anyways - he decides that there is nothing stopping him and Springy having a fling, and is hanging around Springy's house to "catch her eye." Hilarion rocks up just as they are having a kiss and a cuddle, and is lank jealous. He knows how to fix Toffee-Nose for stealing "his chick" - it never crossed his mind that Springy might not be interested in him - and he blows the whistle on them - well not a whistle but a hunter's horn - and who should rock up but Albie's boss, and Bathilde - Albie's boss's daughter and the one who looks like the back end of a bus. Yep big trouble now. OOh yikes - big indaba here! Tempers fly and the okes start fighting each other. Springy makes it clear she wants to be with Albie, but her ma doesn't like that idea and tells her to go inside right away. She refuses and in all the snot & trane (a South African expression meaning highly emotional) she kills herself - and so ends the first half. Now as you can imagine I am left scratching my head. How the heck to they sort this one out - to be honest I don't know if they do "sort it out" - but its end of the first half and the main character is pushing up daisies - or almost. 

The second half starts and Albie is by a grave. His beloved is now dead and he has to marry "Back-end-of-a-bus" Bathilde - talk about a double whammy! There he is crying his eyes out like he had just sliced a pocket of onions - and he sees - he thinks this white thing. What the hell was that, he wonders. He runs around - trying to see what it is that he saw. Well, I bet you are ahead of me here - It's a graveyard - so what do you see in graveyards (if see is the right word?) - but spooks! These spooks according to the programme were called Wilis - I think they meant willies, but I couldn't work that out as they were all wearing dresses, and so I figured they didn't have willies. There was a Queen - now I don't think it was a female impersonator - like Widow Twanky in Aladin, so not a queen in that sense, but a kind of queen that wears a crown and takes command. Anyway, Hilarion, came to mourn his beloved Giselle and he met up with the Willies and it must have given him the Willies - sheez, these spooks are seriously scary. They float around the stage but this guy was trying to get away from them. But they just ambush him on the other path. They were like a ghost commando. Well Hilarion is despatched and doesn't reappear - I didn't know what happened to them. But back to Albie, He sees this ghost, and knock me down with a feather, it's Springy - and she's in front of Albie, and they kind of pick up where they left off before hand - even though this time she is dead - now that's a bit weird if you ask me. He lifts her up - not that hard, given that she doesn't weigh anything, and everything is very happy for a while until the Willies arrive - they have come to recruit Springy - but she is not keen. Albie tries to talk to the queen, but she is like "Talk to the Hand" - Eventually the sun rises and as you know, spooks don't dig the sunlight - and so they all gap it, and Springy - well - she goes back to her grave and can rest. 

I hope you enjoyed my retelling of the story of GISELLE - and if you REALLY want to know what happened! Look at this link. 

http://www.giselle-ballet.com/about/story.shtml

"I'm no sugar plum fatty"

As you can see, I love ballet, and so when something relating to this art form gets into the news, it grabs my attention. I was taken aback though to read the headline:  "I'm no sugar plum fatty" . The article by Miranda Bryant of the Evening Standard prompted me to wonder: "What qualifies a person to be a ballet/theatre/art critic? More specifically in regard to this article: what are Mr. Macauley's qualifications? 

Do editors require the critics to have formal qualification before they consider their critiques for publication? Is so, what are those qualifications? Are they limited to journalistic qualifications, or do they need specific training in the field they pretend to know so much about? Take Mr. Macaulay, for instance. Has he ever attended dance class? Was he an accomplished dancer himself, or like so many of us, an armchair expert? Try as I might, I could not establish whether or not Mr. Macaulay has had dance training or not. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

Coming to the nub of the issue though, we need to ask was the critic justified in criticising the dancer's figure - leaving aside for the moment whether or not his evaluation of her figure was realistic, should he as a professional journalist be commenting on her weight at all, or should he restrict his comments to her skill (or lack of it) as a dancer?

If you look at the attached photo of Jenifer, I'm sure most of us would be hard pressed to say that she is carrying any excess weight, and so his jibe, though it might have seemed quite ironic, and a little bit funny when he wrote it, was, in the opinion of this writer and ballet fan, downright unfair.  

We all like to boo Craig Revell-Horwood with his "Awful" and a "Disaster" and his quibbling over small technical aspects of the dances by the celebrities on Strictly Come Dancing. But, at the end of the day, we know that Craig is himself a dancer and he knows what he is talking about, but what gives Mr. McCaulay the platform to rubbish another's performance? I might sit at home and criticise a rugby player or soccer player and express my opinion loudly. However I would not have the gall to write an article for the local newspaper, and expect to be paid for something I could not do half as well. 

Perhaps I have wronged the man and he has been ballet trained. If that is the case, he should restrict his comments to actually critiquing the ballet and not feel it gives him the right to make personal comments about a persons physical appearance.

I personally consider myself a balletomane, that is a person with an interest in ballet and one of the things at the top of my list of favourite things to do is to watch a ballet. How nice it would be to go down to the West End and watch all the performances and then actually make money, rather than spend it, by writing about it for a newspaper. Unfortunately I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to be a critic. 

Mr Macaulay has refused to apologise for his words saying that a dancer's body is an integral part of his/her art. I did not see the performance, but if Jenifer could fly through the air as she is depicted in the photograph, I would say her dancing ability was not hampered at all. As she said, had she been thinner she would not be able to do the things she does. She must know, having experienced the agony of an eating disorder. 

I find myself agreeing with the writer on an article for the Calgary Herald who said: 

Macaulay should be ashamed of himself. He cannot possibly be unaware of the prevalence of eating disorders, and not just among dancers. Studies have found that girls as young as eight are focused on dieting.

 

Let's not allow Macaulay to do such a disservice to the cause. His comments should be pegged for what they represent -- an anachronistic attitude toward women's bodies that has no place in the cultivation of healthy self-image among women.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Boos+ballet+critic/4002266/story.html#ixzz18f48NKeB

Visiting Stats

	Mon	Tues	Wed	Thur	Fri	Sat	Sun	Total	Avg
Pageloads	1	0	1	0	0	0	27	29	4
Unique Visitors	1	0	1	0	0	0	11	13	2
First Time Visitors	1	0	1	0	0	0	9	11	2
Returning Visitors	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	0

Since I posted my last blog on Saturday I can see lots of people visited. Thank you, one and all who stopped by - would love to have some comments on what you thought.

Did you agree, disagree? I'm curious. 

Please feel free to comment on anything that I have written. All thoughts are welcome

Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I am not a US citizen, but here is my opinion on the DADT Act that has been repealed (but still needs to be signed into law. This was actually, except for a few embellishments at the end a response to something a friend on Facebook wrote.

I'm happy for the repeal of this silly law in the USA. As far as I know there is no conscription in the USA. People join the army for a variety of reasons, and when they join up, they found themselves serving alongside men and woman from very many different backgrounds. Different races, different religions, different political persuasions. all things that can without tolerance e reason for internal conflict and division.  The recruits are expected to leave their prejudices behind them and get on with the task in hand (which is defending your country). Now, with the repeal of DADT, recruits will be tThe notion that 

1. a homosexual man is totally preoccupied with sexual activity, and that they continually seeking out the "talent" amongst their supposed heterosexual colleagues when they are in the shower, in other words that they are LUSTING after every man they see.
2. Heterosexual soldiers never lust after their female counterparts, and that no sexual contact takes place between members of the opposite sex.
3. Homosexual people have not, along with their heterosexual colleaugues, left lovers and partners at home, for whom they have deep affection.

Are simply not realistic. 

I think it is common cause among the many young men and women who choose to join the military, and especially among those serving abroad and away from their partners. is that they are, for the sake of the nation, SACRIFICING, their sexual relations for a time, to get on with an important task of defending the nation. Sexual relations in certain contexts are totally inappropriate, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

Actually, if as a straight man, you were showering in a public gym locker room where you know some of the other men are gay. Would it not be your instinct to be discrete? If a woman officer working on the front-line was flaunting her assets amongst male colleagues, would she not be reprimanded - as her behaviour would be inappropriate and unfair.  Similarly, it should be noted that men could be more discrete when they are amongst other men.

With regard to public displays of affection: Since when is that appropriate in the context of war. It is not appropriate whether the two people involved are men, women, or a man and a woman. I cannot see how the repeal of this act will make it possible for "public displays of affection (holding hands, kissing) to be the order of the day. In civilian life, people often have these public displays, and nobody bats an eyelid when such public displays take place between men and women. However, if a man kisses another man or wants to hold his hand, it is frowned upon. Sorry but that is a double standard.

No doubt, there will be some "fall-out" as a result of this repeal as certain people feel they cannot serve with openly gay colleagues. This will however open the door to other young men and women who would like to serve in the military, but have till now not felt able to, as it would entail them "living a lie". When the USA opened the door for people of colour to serve alongside their white compatriots in the military, there were naysayers and opponents. No doubt some intolerant bigots decided that their "principles" were more important to them than the nations security and they left.  

Whether you regard homosexuality as a sin or not, in this instance,, is completely irrelevant as the Military is an arm of the state, and as such has nothing to do with the Church and doctrine. This is the principle of the constitution. 

Sadly, given that men and women die in wars, when a married or engaged man/woman, their spouse or betrothed is invited to play a role in thee ceremony or may be invited to receive a medal military honour on their behalf, but gay men who were in long term relations with a partner in the military who has been killed in the line of duty are ignored. Likewise, married partners get the financial support in the form of pensions etc. but gay partner has no financial support, even though they made the same sacrifice. 

I'm NOT generally a fan of Melanie Phillips, columnist for the Daily Mail in the UK, and usually find that my opinions and hers do not coincide. However, I will admit that I may be have to set aside my "knee-jerk" reaction in regard to this week's offering.

In her column this week, headed: He's ignorant, cruel and un-Christian. But don't expect the spineless Church to banish Bishop Pete Melanie takes a swipe at the Bishop of Willesden, Pete Broadbent, for rather caustically predicting that the upcoming marriage of Prince William to Catherine Middleton would only last seven years. He justified this astounding prediction on the "fact" that they are "shallow celebrities" and that the Royal Family is "full of philanderers"

Allow me first to emphasise the point that this is a BISHOP of the Church of England. As Ms. Phillips pointed out, the prelate must have taken a vow swearing "true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to the law," Leaving aside, for the time being, whether or not a church leader should be swearing allegiance to ANY earthly person, the fact remains, that he did, and these comments are not in anyway showing loyalty to the Queen, or the royal family. 

Secondly, irresponsible comments such as those uttered by the bishop are cruel and undeserved. They show a prejudice that is out of place when coming from the lips or finger tips of a Christian. How are William and Catherine "shallow celebrities?" William is the grandson of the Queen. He did nothing to make this happen - he was born into the role. He is famous simply because of his relationship to the Queen. Catherine likewise is only famous because of her relationship with Prince William.

TRUE - we live in a society where everybody feels perfectly justified in expressing their opinions on everything from politics and sport to the latest developments on the latest "reality" TV show and everything in between. And here I am doing just that. True too, not only do people express their opinions, but their opinions can go global and viral, by means of Internet Social Networking sites, such as Twitter, Facebook and blogger.com. Freedom of expression, is also a human right, and so Pete Broadbent is indeed entitled to his opinion and his political beliefs.  That being said, just because one has an opinion, does not mean it is politic to express it. 

When one holds a high office, either in the church, or in government, or any other organisation, one has to on occasions hold his own counsel, and remain aloof.

Déanann ceann ciallmhar béal iata 

I came across this Irish Gaelic proverb by chance - but it appears to be apt. It means: A wise man keeps his own counsel. 

When we make a statement, we need to bear in mind our role in society, and how our words will be taken bearing in mind that office. 

Here is a categorical statement which is sure to provoke some rigorous discussion, not to say arguments:

POLITICS and RELIGION do not and should NEVER MIX.

Sounds okay on the face of it, and I can sense many readers are nodding. But would Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu agree? I seriously doubt it - it was as Bishop of Johannesburg and later the Archbishop of Cape Town, that he took a very political stance on the racist policy of Apartheid. I could point out other church leaders who rightly or wrongly took a political stance on a variety of matters. 

I am not suggesting that a church leader should NEVER state a political opinion. But I do feel that church leaders should "hold their counsel" on particular political personalities or parties. In this case, I feel that the bishop was way out of line with these comments. It would have been unwise, had he expressed his opinion at a private party among friends, but the controversial clergyman really went too far when he made his thoughts known on the Internet, with the inevitable outcome that his comments would be widely broadcast and discussed. Making negative comments about others behind their backs is spreading gossip - an activity clearly condemned in the Bible. But to suggest this is gossip is to lend some credibility to his remarks, but since his comments are, as far as I can tell, merely an opinion, they are merely speculation. At best, they are erroneous, at worst, they are outright lies. 

Christians should tell the truth. There is a straight forward maxim - not easily argued against - but its counterpart is also true: A Christian should not speak lies. Between the truth and lies there is a no-man's-land of the "unknown" . Into the chasm of the unknown falls such things as speculation and opinion. We are required to tell the truth, but we are not required to say what we are not sure of. 

I would suggest that in this regard, the bishop was speculating about William and Catherine, and his comments were simply not helpful. 

They were cruel in that they were downright nasty about the Royal family being "philanderers".

Only Bishop Peter knows what motivated him to say the things he did, but it would seem that he allowed his political bias to cloud his judgement. 

Whether his comments were wide of the mark or not is frankly irrelevant - they were unjust. 

What God has put together, let no man put asunder - that is what it says in the Bible, and I believe that in as much as William and Catherine are betrothed (promised to one another) they have been put together. Only God knows if it is He who put them together or not, and pronouncing on the success or otherwise of a marriage that is yet to start is, possibly almost as bad as tearing at the very cords that bind them. 

So, perhaps, for once, Ms Phillips and I agree on something. Do you?


UPDATE: In today's paper, an update on this story. The Bishop has been suspended from his duties.

Jobsworth

I love the Daily Mail – not that I agree necessarily with what they say or how they report a story, but it is, let me say, entertaining to read the story and the underlying prejudices of the reporter that are carried along in the style of the writing. Even more entertaining are the comments of readers that are posted on the internet. Take for instance the story of the man who objected to being woken (prodded – he claimed) on the train by the ticket conductor and refused to show his ticket. I will include the article as it appeared on the Daily Mail website, so that you can read it for yourself.

This is because papers tend to withdraw stories after a while.

'Don't prod me you silly little girl': Train-rage pensioner screamed at woman ticket collector who woke him up

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320430/Pensioners-train-rage-woman-ticket-collector-woke-up.html

A pensioner who flew into a rage after a woman train worker woke him up to check his ticket has been fined £965. Peter Dodd, 66, left Nicola Loynes in tears after he screamed at her not to 'prod' him and called her a 'silly little girl'. He angrily refused to show his ticket on the Southeastern train because there were barriers at Ebbsfleet and Kings Cross.

Dodd, who was unrepresented, was yesterday found guilty of disorderly conduct and failing to produce a ticket following a trial at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.

Dodd looked like he was about to attack Ms Loynes as 'everything they said was enraging him into a volcano of fury', a fellow passenger said. 'He was so bloody-minded,' he added.

The retired researcher then refused to speak to ticket conductor Leslie Conway when she intervened on the 8.05 service from Ebbsfleet last October, saying: 'I'm sleeping.'

After his arrest, he made a counter-allegation of assault against Ms Loynes for nudging him awake. Dodd said he had been awake all the previous night and was intending to spend a full day at the National Archives in Kew. He said: 'I'm a gentleman of a certain age, used to certain consideration and certain manners - these I did not receive.

'I was manhandled by Ms Loynes while trying to sleep.I was woken rudely and inconsiderately and I'm a client - they can wait.'

He added: 'To use the playground refrain: she started it.' Passing sentence, Deputy District Judge Stott said: 'Train staff have a right to ask for your ticket and you must show it.

'It isn't you for you to lay down conditions. 'On this particular date, clearly you chose not to produce your ticket. 'There was fear in the evidence I have heard today of your reaction under a trivial circumstance. 'I regard it as undoubtedly being disorderly - you lost control of yourself for reasons best known to you.'

Dodd, of South Kensington, west London, was fined £300 and ordered to pay £500 costs, £100 compensation to Ms Loynes, £50 compensation to Mr Conway and a £15 victim surcharge.

Mr Dodd, in my opinion totally overreacted and deserved the consequence of the fine and is lucky to have got away without a ban from the railways. However – I titled this article "Jobsworth" because in the comments that followed there were a number of people accusing Ms Loynes, the train worker, for being a "jobsworth" - a new expression to me – but I have come to discover that it is not that new in terms of usage.

"he did not need to be woken up by a petty jobsworth" - wrote one commenter.

"Difficult to say.....it depends on how this panned out. Perhaps the ticket collector on a 'jobsworth' poked him aggresively and startled him...in which case I would also be annoyed. On the other hand if she just tapped him politely,then he shouldn't have been so grumpy....it's all to do with attitude...." wrote another.

"Another example of the ordinary British person being fed up with over-authoratitive jobsworths. If we weren't constantly harassed from morning to night by people with more power than sense, this sad little girl might have had a nicer day!"... observed another.

Not being familiar with this quintessentially British expression, I looked it up, and here is the definition – for those of you equally befuddled.

A jobsworth is a person who uses his or her job description in a deliberately un-cooperative way, or who seemingly delights in acting in an obstructive or unhelpful manner.

A minor clerical worker who refuses to be flexible in the application of rules to help a client or customer.

Jobsworth is slang for a person who is very pedantic at work; named after the oft heard, "I can't let you do that, it's more than my jobs worth."

To my surprise there has even been a song written about this strange breed, aptly named "Jobsworth" - written by Jeremy Taylor, who also wrote "Ag pleez, Daddy!" and The Lift Girl's Lament".

Well, I hope you had a smile, I enjoyed it and I know exactly the kind of person he is singing about. I don't however think that the hapless Ms Loynes can be described as a "jobsworth" at all. She was simply doing her job, and given the number of people on benefits at the moment and the moans and groans of those who are burdened with a "tax-bill" - should we not be grateful that this lady is earning her wage? I was happy to see today that she had written a comment in her own defence:

I would just like to say in my defence that Mr Dodds was lightly tapped on his arm to wake him as he did not respond to me twice asking for his ticket. I have a duty to care for the passengers travelling on my train so after receiving no response Mr Dodd's welfare became my first priority. I was at no time rude to Mr Dodds, I am a firm believer of treating those how I would like to be treated myself. I was never bought up to be rude to anyone and have often been commended on my high levels of customer service. We all have a job to do at the end of the day and will do it to the best of our ability, I am and never will be a jobs worth but believe in treating all customers fairly and with a level of consistency no matter what the age. I would also like to add that I didn't let anybody apart from my colleagues see me upset. I have never been reduced to tears by a customer but this time these where bought on when the shock of how I had just been spoken to set in.

This comment puts a different slant on the whole story. The impression created by the grumpy pensioner was that he was suddenly set upon by the conductor, Ms Loynes and that she demanded to see his tickets. It turns out, she spoke to him and he did not respond. As she says herself, Mr Dodd's welfare became her priority. She was not aware however that she was about to disturb Mt. Versuvias and it would erupt.

I heard this week that the people who would judge us the most are those who know us the least – or words to that effect – and I think that this is the case with this story. I must admit I have not had a high opinion of Mr Dodds, and there may be reasons which he has not shared with the court or with us, which would explain, if not justify his bullying behaviour towards Ms Loynes. I think it unnecessary and unfair to brand Mr Dodds as terrible, etc. His behaviour on that occasion may have been totally uncalled for and unjustified, but this does not mean that he is always like this. Likewise, if one has a difficult exchange with an official, it certainly doesn't mean that the person is in general a difficult character, or that they are necessarily being a "jobsworth".

Young people in London are becoming fed up with being cast in a negative light simply because of the actions of a few delinquent young people. They have set up a website for their cause – it is: http://www.99percent.org.uk/

However the same can be said of most groups of people who are lumped together and demonised.

• Bankers – characterised as over-paid, greedy, swindlers, people who caused the credit-crunch.
• Evangelicals – right wing, fundamentalist, Bible-bashing, judgmental, uncompromising (in a negative sense of lacking any compassion).
• Homosexuals – characterised by promiscuity, wishing to corrupt young people, HIV positive, etc. I chose the term 'homosexual' rather than 'gay' because many who would speak badly of this group use the "H" word.
• Politicians – lying, self-serving, unhelpful, etc.,
• Unemployed/people on benefits – undeserving, lazy, thieving, scroungers, etc.
• Young people (or 'hoodies') – characterised by rudeness, inconsiderateness, violent behaviour.

All negative stereotypes of groups – just because some bankers have made an awful lot of money at the expense of the economy, does not make every banker responsible for the crisis. Just because some big names in the Evangelical world have had hardline and intolerant attitudes, or that some have acted corruptly does not make every evangelical Christian a hypocrite. There are gay men who have multiple partners, and there are those who, illegally, seek sexual relations with teens and younger boys. However, these people are not the majority of gay men. It is also true to say that it is not only gay men who engage in pedophilia. The actions of politicians are very frustrating at times and we are right to criticise them for their actions, but there are politicians who are not simply power-hungry but genuinely seek to serve society. In the UK it has become a national sport to ridicule the jobless and characterise them as lazy and scrounging. This may be the case with some, but many simply cannot find work and need the "Job seekers allowance" just to get by.

I hope that after reading this, you will come away with a pause for thought – I think we all need to realise that we can sometimes fall into the TRAP of over-generalizing. When we do this, whether or not we express these prejudices out loud or just think them, we are contributing to the problem rather than being part of the solution. Jesus came into the World and unlike the revered rabbis of his day, he would go and talk to the eople who were marginalised – the "drunkards and 'sinners' – polite talk for prostitutes. There was never any suggestion of inappropriate behaviour on his part, but this did not stop the Pharisees and Saducees from being very condemnatory. However Jesus brushed off their criticisms with contempt.

When I reflect on this newspaper article, I think we can learn that we need to show understanding and respect to those who live and work amongst us. Mr Dodd did not show respect and paid a hefty financial penalty as a result. Instead of being grumpy and cursing the ticket checkers, it would be far more beneficial to smile and thank them for their service.