Tuesday, 28 July 2009

The Right Not To Be Offended

Albert Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary comments on what he terms the "culture of offendedness". Mohler places a high value on freedom, while at the same time not compromising on the Christian faith. This is something that very few Christians hold to, let alone are able to articulate. Voltaire had it right when he said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." At the same time though, I can't do better than quote from one of my favourite songs by Kutless, "There's nothing you can do to shut me up, to shut me out when I'm speaking the truth". Anyway, I could rave on and on about freedom and truth - but for now I want to share Albert Mohler's latest excellent blog post - a few excerpts of which are below...

A new and unprecedented right is now the central focus of legal, procedural, and cultural concern in many corridors--a supposed right not to be offended. The cultural momentum behind this purported "right" is growing fast, and the logic of this movement has taken hold in many universities, legal circles, and interest groups...

...These days, it is the secularists who seem to be most intent on pushing a proposed right never to be offended by confrontation with the Christian Gospel, Christian witness, or Christian speech and symbolism. This motivation lies behind the incessant effort to remove all symbols, representations, references, and images related to Christianity from the public square. The very existence of a large cross, placed on government property as a memorial, outside San Diego, California, has become a major issue in the courts, and now in Congress. Those pressing for the removal of the cross claim that they are offended by the fact that they are forced to see this Christian symbol from time to time...

...The very idea of civil society assumes the very real possibility that individuals may at any time be offended by another member of the community. Civilization thrives when individuals and groups seek to minimize unnecessary offendedness, while recognizing that some degree of real or perceived offendedness is the cost the society must pay for the right to enjoy the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to speak one's mind...

...Given our mandate to share the Gospel and to speak openly and publicly about Jesus Christ and the Christian faith, Christians must understand a particular responsibility to protect free speech and to resist this culture of offendedness that threatens to shut down all public discourse.
Of course, the right for Christians to speak publicly about Jesus Christ necessarily means that adherents of other belief systems will be equally free to present their truth claims in an equally public manner. This is simply the cost of religious liberty...

Click here to read the entire article.

Dr. Glenn Peoples, PhD will be giving a talk entitled "Chasing the Justificatory Goalpost: Public Justification and Religious Beliefs" on Thursday night at the University of Canterbury - a topic very similar to the thrust of Mohler's article. If you're free Thursday night, click here for all the information on this event.

Sunday, 26 July 2009

Methamphetamine

David Farrar over at Kiwiblog posted the following poem on his blog. Paul Holmes read it out on his slot on his Saturday programme on Newstalk ZB. In 2007 Paul's daughter was convicted of posessing methamphetamine (also known as P), and as any father would, Paul really struggled through this time. Anyway, the poem here is very moving - would be excellent if all young people could read or hear this poem. While I support decriminalisation of drugs, I want it to be crystal clear that I am strongly opposed to drug abuse and am keen to be much more involved in raising awareness and helping people caught up in the crippling, downward spiral of such a lifestyle. Here's the poem.

Methamphetamine

I destroy homes, I tear families apart
I take your children, and that’s just a start
I’m more costly than diamonds, more precious than gold
The sorrow I bring is a sight to behold

If you need me, remember, I’m easily found
I live all around you, in schools and in town
I live with the rich, I live with the poor
I live down the street, I may be next door

I’m made in a lab, but not like you think
I can be made under the kitchen sink
In your child’s closet, and even in the woods
If this scares you to death, it certainly should

I have many names, but there’s one you know best
I’m sure you’ve heard of me, my name is Crystal Meth
My power is awesome, try me, you’ll see
But if you do, you’ll never be free

Just try me once, and I might let you go
But try me twice and I’ll own your soul
When I possess you, you’ll steal and you’ll lie
You’ll do what you have to, just to get high

The crimes you’ll commit, for my narcotic charms
Will be worth the pleasure you’ll feel in your arms
You’ll lie to your mother, you’ll steal from your dad
When you see their tears, you should feel sad

But you’ll forget your morals and how you were raised
I’ll be your conscience, I’ll teach you my ways
I take kids from parents, and parents from kids
I turn people from God and separate friends

I’ll take everything from you, your looks and your pride
I’ll be with you always, right by your side.
You’ll give up everything, your family, your home
Your friends, your money, then you’ll be alone

I’ll take and I’ll take till you have nothing more to give
When I’ve finished with you, you’ll be lucky to live
If you try me, be warned, this is no game
If given the chance, I’ll drive you insane

I’ll ravish your body, I’ll control your mind
I’ll own you completely, your soul will be mine
The nightmares I’ll give you while you’re lying in bed
The voices you’ll hear from inside your head

The sweats, the shakes, the visions you’ll see
I want you to know, these are your gifts from me
But then it’s too late, and you’ll know in your heart,
That you are mine, and we shall not part

You’ll regret that you tried me, they always do
But you came to me, not I to you
You knew this would happen, many times were you told
But you challenged my power, and I chose to be bold

You could have said no and just walked away
If you could live that day over, now what would you say?
I’ll be your master, you’ll be my slave
I’ll even go with you, when you go to your grave

Now that you’ve met me, what will you do?
Will you try me or not? It’s all up to you
I can bring you more misery, than words can tell
Come, take my hand, let me lead you to hell.

Check out The Meth Project website for more information on how terrible P is, and what we can do to help.

Saturday, 25 July 2009

Obama's "Science Czar" is a Dangerous Man

An excerpt from my latest post at JillStanek.com...

In his weekly address late in December 2008, President Obama announced that he had chosen Dr. John Holdren to be his assistant for Science and Technology (often referred to as the science czar), and Dr. Holdren was instated to the position in March.

Unsurprisingly, Obama neglected to make reference to Holdren's extremist views on population control and instead focused on his expertise in relation to "the growing threat of climate change". FrontPageMag.com sums up the key concerns that many are raising about Holdren...

Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the US as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the US standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity.

Let's take a closer look at this. Obama was the only senator who voted against and spoke against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in the IL State Senate. He is without doubt the most anti-life president in history, so is it any surprise that he should select a science advisor who is known to have extreme pro-abortion views?

Click here to continue reading.

Friday, 24 July 2009

I lol'd

A guy goes into the confessional box. He finds on one wall a
fully equipped bar with Guinness on tap. On the other wall
is a dazzling array of the finest Cuban cigars.

Then the priest comes in.

"Father, forgive me, for it's been a long time since I've
been to confession, but I must first say that the
confessional box is much more inviting these days."

The priest replies, "Get out! You're on my side!!!"

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

Interiting $57m from Michael Jackson

My mate got sent this spam email - he got pretty excited and I had to try and calm him down. Got him to take a seat and broke the news to him as gently as I could that he was not in fact, the beneficiary of the late Michael Jackson, and that he would never see the promised $57m dollars. Anyway, have a read of the email - it's side-splittingly funny...

Attn: Beneficiary

My Name Is Barr. James Blair Legal Anttorney to Michael Jackson. We were working on a charity tour when he had cardiac arrest . We have $57Million which we would want to be transferred to your account please contact me with your personal details for more information

It is my wish to see that this money is invested in any organization of your choice and distributed each year among the charity organization, the poor and the motherless baby's home I want your good humanitarian,to also use this money to fund churches, orphanages and widows around.

As soon as I receive your reply I shall give you the contact of the Bank in United States MIDFLORIDA BANK in Florida . I will also issue a letter of authority to the bank, which will prove that you are the new beneficiary of Michael Jackson funds.Please assure me that you will act accordingly as I stated here in.Hope to hear from you soonest.

I await your reply on this my Dearest faithfully friend.

Barr. James Blair

Tuesday, 21 July 2009

Snowed Under

It's real cold in Christchurch at the moment, have to let my hands thaw out before I can take my helmet off and lock up my bike when I get to uni in the mornings. Hasn't snowed yet though - some trees are starting to blossom so I think there's hope yet.

Anyway I'm snowed under with a fair number of things on the go, not least the smacking referendum which is bearing down on us over the next few weeks.

The recent Gallup poll in the States indicating that 51% of Americans identify themselves as pro-life has relevance here in New Zealand. There is a groundswell of opposition to the killing of unborn children and I am heavily involved in this. We're just starting up a new pro-life group in Masterton with another planned for the beginning of next year in Auckland.

Should probably be getting some study done at some stage there. Yeah I'm pretty much snowed under. Posting will be pretty light for a few days until I get back on top of things.

Saturday, 18 July 2009

Imagine the Potential

Those Catholics keep producing these excellent and subtle pro-life adverts. Here is their first one - and below their latest which commemerates 40 years since man first set foot on the moon.

Thursday, 16 July 2009

What Did You Say Phil?


The entire collection of Vote NO videos is here.

Exclusive: Interview With a Cannabis User

An interview I have taken with a cannabis user who has requested to remain anonymous. There is a great deal of speculation among those who oppose decriminalising marijuana. Many approach the subject with pre-conceptions and with no first-hand, accurate or balanced understanding of the issue. Here is an opportunity to hear first-hand, what someone on "the other side" of the debate has to say on a whole range of aspects of marijuana - from how you use it and how it feels to thoughts on the legal side of the issue.


When did you start using marijuana?
beginning of 2008. Oh no maybe end of 2007.


how were you introduced to using weed?
ok, a family member - we were drinking, and a family member invited me to join them.

were you pressured into it?
no, not really, I just thought I'd give it a go, but I was quite drunk so you know, it probably wouldn't have taken much to pressure me into it anyway. Yeah, it's often the way a lot of people first smoke it, aye - drunk, drinking. They'll be at a party and someone will have some and offer... weed and alcohol is a pretty weird mix. You get real spaced out, aye. It's not something I like doing. I don't even drink alcohol anymore.

so you're saying you wouldn't have begun using it if you weren't drunk?
nah, I probably would have - it just happened to be the way I was introduced to it - on subsequent times smoking it, I wasn't drunk.

how do you use weed?
any number of ways, a spiff which is just a joint rolled with tobacco, or just a straight joint which is just weed rolled in paper, um a bong which is like a water pipe that you draw the smoke through the water, or a buckie where you cut the bottom of a 1.5 liter bottle, put a cone piece in, push it down into the water and then light the weed above the water, then take the cap off and suck it down real quick, or push it back into the water and suck it up that way, or um a lungie where you have a big 1.5 liter coke bottle or something with a bag on the end, a bag taped on the end so it's airtight and you light the cone piece on the top and the weed, then you pull the bag out and then, then it fills up with smoke you know, then you push the bag down and then you take the cap off and suck it in...

far out... what other ways are there?
well there's cones, glass pipes, metal pipes or whatever... oh spots, of course - spots. They're usually done on electric elements or on a, on a gas ring - you put knives to heat up, and then you roll up a little bit of weed and put it on the knife - squeeze it between two knives while someone with a glass bottle with the bottom smashed off it um, draws it up - takes two people to do that, but it's - it's the most efficient way of smoking weed that I've found. Um, there's vapourisers too but I've never used them, they're expensive.

What other ways are there?
There's can cones, where you get a empty coke can or whatever, bourbon can, whatever you've got and you, all you do is you flatten it a bit on the top, stab a couple of holes through it with something small, then stick the weed on top and light it through the holes in the can, sort of drink it through the can. It's a real rangi way and apparently it's bad for you 'cause you get aluminum poisoning or something. I dunno, what other ways are there... Oh you can make cones out of things like apples and stuff, so you smoke weed that way. Or um, light-bulbs. you get a straw and you put the weed in the bulb - take the end off the light-bulb - get a straw on the end of it and you light the weed from underneath and heat up the light-bulb, kinda like a cheap, free vapouriser. Then you just suck the smoke up the straw.

What sort of environment are you in when you are using weed?
Depends. I'm usually just with friends or family or just by myself. just quiet, you know, evenings or whatever.

How often do you use it, or have used it in the past?
At most, like daily - at most like a couple of times a day.

How much would you consume at one time? - can you measure it in grams?
Oh, two cone-packings which might be a quarter of a gram.

How does using weed make you feel?
Relaxed, just quite mellow aye, pretty happy sometimes - depends, the effects are sometimes like - if you just smoke a wee bit, you just feel a bit mellow and stuff - makes you feel tired sometimes. You just fall asleep sometimes. Yeah, just mellow and relaxed, just quite a joyful mood, quite a happy sort of mood, I dunno, you like to talk a bit

Would you say you do things you normally wouldn't do?
Ah, no not really at all aye - just maybe, I do dumb stuff sometimes, like try and trim my beard and it doesn't work. Mostly do what you do normally.

How does it affect things going on around you?
Well it depends what it is - sometimes you look at things, you get a different perspective on things. Yeah sometimes you just look at things a bit differently - a bit more objectively than you do when you're straight. I don't know why that is.

Do you feel that using it could lead you to breaking the law - or offend or hurt people?
No - I mean apart from that I am breaking the law

(laughter)

Yes I guess in that respect - like I don't suddenly get the urge to go out and like, rob an old granny flat or something, or assault a granny or something. I'd rather just listen to music - or play a video game

How do you feel about using it when you know it's against the law?
It doesn't bother me that much.

Would you say it's not a just law?
Yeah I think so - it's something that grows in the ground. I'm pretty sure that right at the start - God says that we've been given every plant that bears seed, and guess what - it's a plant that bears seed, and I'm pretty sure that overrules any laws in countries. How can you outlaw a herb? It's really like, ridiculous - it's not even consistent with the law in New Zealand. I mean, how come there's an item on Trademe for $20 which with normal household implements can be changed into a class A drug. How does that make sense, and that's legal! Why is that legal?

What is it?
You turn San Pedro cactus into mescaline so like cactus juice - the cactus is legal and you buy foot-long pieces on Trademe for 20 bucks, and a foot just happens to be the right amount - when you cook it up it's just the right amount for a trip - funny that, but it's legal.

Would you say the drug laws in New Zealand are unfair?
Well, I think so because when you look at statistics in New Zealand there are thousands of hospitalisations for alcohol per year. Hundreds and hundreds of deaths caused by alcohol - and when you compare that to the relative effects of other drugs - albeit used by less of the population - it's still a lower ratio, so why is something like alcohol which has known risks - it's considered to have greater health-risks than cannabis, and more addictive, and yet it's legal - that doesn't make sense to me.

How do various substances affect your ability to do things?
Weed can sometimes make you feel a bit lazy because you feel so mellow you don't do anything, but you can still do everything if you put your mind to it you can read and you can study - I did my tax return while I was stoned, you know.

What about driving?
I think I drive fine while I'm stoned. And like, other people being in the car have never commented on any peculiar behaviour about my driving when I've been stoned.

And comparing that with driving when you've had a can of beer?
A can of beer, (laughs) ... I would drive fine. If I was drunk, obviously you can't drive - you do dumb stuff. Like you think it's funny to go 130 down a small side-street - well at least that's my experience of driving drunk.

But you wouldn't do that after using weed?
No - the worst thing that happens is I get a bit lost when I'm driving - it gets a bit confusing about where you are - nah, you're usually - I find I'm a really polite and courteous driver when I'm stoned aye.

How does using weed enhance music and things?
Colours are brighter, more vivid - music just, I dunno - it just seems to come alive, aye and you, your heart starts racing and - I find I feel quite euphoric when I listen to music with headphones on - dark room or something, so you're not distracted, just listening to music - like you do...

Sounds really cool.
Obviously, playing computer games is quite good.

Does it improve your skill?
No, not really aye, sometimes I forget to do things and stuff - I don't play as well probably - it's still good fun. Games that I don't know, I struggle to play when I'm stoned.

I can't watch TV when I'm stoned. When you watch TV when you're stoned you analyse the whole TV show - you look at the plot and you go, man that's a rubbish plot and you go why does the director choose that shot? and you know, you can break down the whole TV show and see you know, you can sort of see through the acting if it's not good, so you can't watch bad movies when you're stoned like you know you've got to watch really well acted ones like um, Pulp Fiction - I enjoyed Pulp Fiction - have you ever seen it?

Yeah - I was freaked out
It's got some pretty bad bits in it, but...

It's got some pretty good actors in it, Samuel L. Jackson...
John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Uma Thurman...

Ok, should weed be made legal?
Yeah I think so. I don't understand why it's illegal.

Would you vote for the Legalise Cannabis party of New Zealand?
Nah, not really.

It's not that much of an issue for you?
Nah, cause the laws are so lax on it in New Zealand anyway - you know, there doesn't seem to be that much risk of being prosecuted.

What about the health risks? Aren't you worried about what it's doing to your lungs or your heart?
You hear such widely-varying stories - so it's hard to really know, but I've read a reasonable bit of research that indicates that smoking through a bong is um, quite good because it eliminates a lot of the tars and harmful chemicals and things that you would normally inhale even in a cigarette and things as well. I'm told that it has less health risks than tobacco - because of all the chemicals that are put on tobacco when it's grown - so you know. Like when I was smoking cigarettes I smoked like you know, 5 or 10 a day or whatever whereas I'm not smoking anywhere near that much weed. So I'm not getting all that smoke...

So smoking weed instead of cigarettes - are you saving money?
I'm not saving all that much money to be honest, but it is a bit cheaper than my tobacco habit.

How much does it cost?
Oh, $250 an ounce. That lasts me 4 - 5 months. That's pretty cheap, you know - I know buy it from a guy who knows a grower - but most people pay about $350.

What do you think about marijuana used for medicinal purposes?
It can be pretty good for pain relief. Some people find it better for pain relief than I do. Some people like it for their back, I don't use it for my back, but I have muscle-aches and that - I find it works rather well. And generally because it relaxes your whole demeanor you feel less stressed out - pain and things. But to be honest, I'd say that I use it more recreationally than medicinally.

Do you use it to combat depression or sorrow?
(pause) That's a pretty personal question...

Yeah I know.
Maybe initially, when I was smoking it, like I was in a dark place but um, but yeah you know I was going through a rough patch. You know, at the time when I started smoking I was in a pretty bad place. But since then you know, my life's a lot better than it was so, perhaps back then I smoked it to get away from reality or something, but now I just do it 'cause I enjoy it. I don't feel you know, depressed when I smoke or anything.

What's your thoughts on using a substance like this for, you know, escaping reality for a bit.
You know, when you're - when you start to rely on a drug I think that's when the addiction - that's when you start to get psychologically addicted. So I try not to... If you ever think "Oh I need to have a smoke", that's that's the best time not to have one. I do something else 'cause then you don't become reliant on it.

So you weren't at any stage addicted to weed?
I don't find it addictive at all. The only thing is that if I don't smoke, sometimes I struggle with sleep. It says on the New Zealand Health website - if you stop smoking for 3 weeks, that sort of thing goes away. But it's never concerned me that much.

The two most academically intelligent people I know are both pot smokers aye which is quite funny. One is doing a PhD at University. The girl who's doing the PhD - you know, I've discussed the health risks with her, and she's quite knowledgeable on the subject and she believes the health risks are quite low. She explained the effects of other drugs as well. Like she believes psychedelics are very low health risk.

What do you think - is weed a gateway drug?
I don't know - I disagree with the idea. I think weed and other drugs - especially chemicals - it's a separate issue. I know some people that aren't really interested in doing other drugs that smoke weed, so I think - when you look at the amount of people in New Zealand that smoke weed, compared to that of using other drugs, it's very low - you know, cannabis is a lot higher percentage. It's a separate issue. I can see how being introduced to a drug by someone who sells pot... it can be an easy way to be introduced to a drug - especially if you go to their parties or whatever - so in that respect it can be a gateway drug. It's more about the lifestyle you're living - that will allow you to be... I mean if you just have your pot and have nothing to do with anything else... you do your own thing.

Do you have to be strong-willed about it?
For me, It doesn't really interest me to like, go to parties with people who have got those kind of drugs. You know, I don't lead that kind of life - so it's not really - it doesn't really bother me, so I don't get exposed to any other drugs. I don't know if it's like that for other people. Like I have been when I've been at parties like that.

What other drugs have you tried?
Recreationally, ritalin which was kinda fun, but you know, it's not something I'd ever do again. I just don't like taking chemicals, and it feels like - to me, the chemicals should be illegal. I know that I'm really doing wrong when I'm taking them. You know, there's a reason they're illegal - they're quite dangerous. You know like, ritalin, class B - it has its risks. But other than that, like I've taken a few class C drugs like valium and codeine and stuff. Pretty lame. I tried nutmeg once - it did nothing. It's supposed to make you stoned for like 3 days or something...

(laughter)

But it didn't do anything... it just gave me bad nutmeg burps... I drank heaps of the stuff, like 60 grams of nutmeg - it did nothing. Oh, I've done hash - an extract of weed.

Tell me about hash
I don't know much about hash, only done it once - just got really stoned.

How would you feel if your children were using weed?
I don't have any children.

But if you did?
Depends what age they are.

15?
Nah, they shouldn't be smoking at 15 'cause there's a lot of medical evidence that shows psychological disorders associated with smoking marijuana at a age under 18 - there's a significantly increased risk - at least in research I've read... Like if it was legalised I would never you know, it should be 18+, 21+ or something.

If you were a father, would you tend to steer your children away from drug use? How would you approach that?
I can't say - I'm not a father - too difficult for me to say at this point in my life, like what I would do. I might feel differently about it then. Yeah I can't really say right now.

Would you feel happy if...
Depends if it affected their lives probably - what manner it affected their lives, like because some people you know, don't go to school when they smoke pot and that kind of thing. So obviously that would be bad.

Right, thanks a lot - this has been really interesting.
No worries.

Tuesday, 14 July 2009

I lol'd

I asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.
She said she wanted to be the Prime Minister like Helen Clark some day.
Both of her parents, Labour supporters, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?"
She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
Her parents beamed, and said, "Welcome to the Labour Party!"
"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I told her.
I continued, "But you don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house, mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the Dairy where the homeless guy hangs out. You can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"
I smiled and said, "Welcome to the ACT Party."
Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

from Get Frank

Monday, 13 July 2009

82.29%

82.29%

That's the average of the 35 main polls (note, includes poll on Young Labour website!) taken between 2005 - 2009. The referendum question is not flawed. Parents who smack their children are not child abusers. Sue Bradford doesn't understand her own law and Prime Minister John Key has no backbone.

John, if you continue refusing to listen to the people, National will lose the 2011 election.

Your call.

Sunday, 12 July 2009

Why Did They Hate Him So Much?

Lydia has written an interesting piece on the treatment of Jesus by the Roman soldiers, shortly before his crucifixion. Whether you believe Jesus is God and the saviour of men - or not, it's still a good glimpse at such a pivotal event in history.


James Caviezel in The Passion of the Christ
Suddenly, there is a hushed silence, heads turn around to look behind them, the crowd parts hesitatingly. A man strides through their midst. The muscles on his golden arms ripple as he swings them, his crisp, bleached hair lies in waves on his fine head. He is undisputedly their leader - everything about his confident air and flung back shoulders proclaims it. His eyes flash, almond shaped, brown - he moves down the aisle of perspiring men with a careless grace. He carries on one arm a large piece of egyptian linen, died a deep purple, like the curved insides of seashells, the colour reserved for kings and emperors only. In the other hand he is holding, very carefully, a wreath of thorns. A scratch runs down the back of one perfect hand, wet with crimson.

Men push against each other, damp tunics to damp tunics, sandals shuffling in the dusty sand, to make way for their leader, and to see what will happen. As they move we see a figure standing alone in this arena of men. He stands a little to one side, his head bowed, his arms hanging by his side. Despite his despondent attitude, there is an aura of peace about him that singles him out from the tense, watching crowd. The crowd catches a glimpse of the man's mutilated back and shoulders - cruel Roman whips have turned his back into ribbons of flesh, skin and blood. Silence grows, throbs like a living organism in its breathless persistency. The leader stands in the ring now, the chiseled head held high, arms crossed, feet apart, a magnificent specimen of manhood, taunting, defiant.

Check out Matthew's account of this event in Matthew 27:27-31.

Abortion: Focus on the Issues, Not the Personalities

Annaleigh at the Feminists for Choice pro-abortion blog writes of her experience meeting pro-life activist Randall Terry. Even though this man is radically pro-life and anti-abortion, and has been widely criticised for his tactics both within pro-life and anti-life circles, she is surprised to discover that he is polite and reasonable. Below is the conclusion of her interesting article which both pro-life and anti-life advocates would do well to read.

Too often we want our opponents to be wild caricatures of themselves, raving and irrational. But this is rarely the case. I am reminded of the stories about how much Saddam Hussein enjoyed cookies while he was in custody. But… I like cookies, too! How can this be? Another example would be Mike Huckabee, I disagree with him on tons of policy issues but gosh if he isn’t a nice guy! I’d have a beer with George W. Bush. The list goes on… I think Terry’s positions are irrational, I think that when he and Bill O’Reilly call health care providers “mass murderers” and “baby killers” that no one should be surprised when a crazy person takes them at their word. Don’t let down your guard, stay focused on the issues, not the personalities and remember that, at the end of the day, we’re all people and we ought to be able to get along. As long as the pro-choice movement keeps coexistence as one of our main principles, we’ll be on the right path.

Friday, 10 July 2009

Anti-Smacking Arguments Unfounded

In Dr Matthew Flannagan's recent article exposing The Flawed Moral Theology on the Smacking Referendum, he makes the following excellent observations on the three most commonly touted reasons for criminalising smacking.

Mayman began by offering three standard arguments for repealing the old section 59, the defence of reasonable force for the purposes of parental correction. The first is that, “Prior to the law change, there had been terrible cases of child abuse that had not resulted in an assault conviction because of the use of this defence.” The second is that, “New Zealand has appalling rates of lethal and non-lethal child abuse and there is strong evidence that abuse often occurs as an escalation of physical punishment.” The third is that, “The law needed to be changed to ensure that the children received equal protection.” Despite their popularity and repetition in the media, these arguments are seriously flawed.

1. Some Accuseds Get Off
Turning to the first, it may be true that the existence of the defence of reasonable force meant that some child abusers escaped conviction. What Mayman fails to note is that this is true of any defence in Criminal Law. Section 48 of the Crimes Act allows a person to use reasonable force in defence of oneself or another from assault. Undoubtedly some serious assaults have not resulted in criminal prosecution as a result of the existence of this defence. Similarly, the law allows those accused of rape to mount a defence that the victim consented; this defence undoubtedly has lead to serious rapes not resulting in conviction. In fact, the very existence of a requirement for the prosecution to prove an assault has occurred, beyond reasonable doubt, has resulted in untold number of serious criminal actions not resulting in criminal convictions. Hence, if the mere fact that the former s59 occasionally resulted in criminals not being convicted entails that it should remain abolished then all defences should be abolished; clearly this is an absurd conclusion.

2. Criminalisation Because of Escalation
The second argument fares no better. Mayman asserts that, “abuse often occurs as an escalation of physical punishment.” This may be true. It is also true that spousal abuse often occurs as an escalation from a verbal argument between spouses. Does it follow that we should criminalise verbal arguments with one’s spouse.

3. Equal Protection
Mayman’s third argument, that children must receive “equal protection” under the law, is also problematic. It is true that the law does not allow a parent to smack an adult. However, it is also true that the law does not allow an adult to prevent another adult from leaving the house; to do this would be to commit false imprisonment. The law also does not allow an adult to confiscate the property of another adult; this is the crime commonly known as theft. Nor does the law allow an adult to subject another adult to medical treatment without their consent; this would be both a form of assault and a violation of the Bill of Rights’ protection of life and security of the person.

If we were to truly give children equal protection under the law then it should be illegal for parents to send their children to their room, to ground them, to confiscate their property or keep their immunisations up to date. Clearly no sensible person advocates this because no sensible person really believes that children should receive equal protection under the law.

Further on in the article Matt explains how Margaret Mayman (and others) have twisted Jesus' words "let the little children come to me" in order to back up their flawed position that smacking is child-abuse. Very well argued.

Tuesday, 7 July 2009

If At First You Don't Succeed, Tri, Tri Again


this triangle is the same shape and size...
Nathan handed me one of Ray Comfort's Gospel tracts before as we were cleaning out the room. It's one of the ones with a bunch of optical illusions, with the gospel message beginning "Many things in life can be an illusion, but one thing is sure - ten out of ten die..."


same pieces: where did the hole come from?
I'd seen them all before - apart from this confounded triangle illusion. I sat there and studied the darned thing for ages, then had to reconstruct the images on my computer to see how the pieces fitted together. Finally I turned to Google for help. This fulla, Mark Wieczorek seems to have it sorted out pretty well. Don't look though, until you've had a good shot at working it out.

Saturday, 4 July 2009

Timeless Cinematic Moments 18


John Roakesmith (Steven Mackintosh) embraces Bella Wilfer (Anna Friel) towards the end of BBC's 1998 adaptation of Charles Dickens' Our Mutual Friend. Thats about the third time I've watched this excellent film, however the first time to see all of it. Previously we had watched the version that we taped when it was on TV, however the DVD version gave even greater depth and intrigue to the mysterious story. Numerous sub-plots with seemingly weak links to each other come together weaving one of Dickens' most complex and celebrated novels onscreen. This moment in the film is one of the defining points as the mysterious Mr. Roakesmith and his love Bella are finally reconciled. The film is wonderful but not without some annoying aspects that could have been avoided. Not only this but Charles Dickens in his infinite wisdom saw fit to bring together two people: one an arrogant, lazy, hateful man - Mr. Eugene Rayburn, with another - a lovely, noble and selfless young woman, Lizzie Hexam (played very well by period drama favourite, Keeley Hawes). Argh!

There's more than meets the eye... with you.

On A Scale of 1 to 10...

...this set of instructions would have to get a 9 just for sheer ingenuity and unintentional hilarity! Dad bought a new-fangled set of scales on Trademe and they were there sitting at the door; dropped off by a courier when we got back home this morning. Hahahah, I can't wait to read the instructions... Mum unwrapped the thing and we were confronted with a budget blue box stating "Personal Scale - Not For Business Counting". It sure as heck didn't dissapoint! Click on the picture for a larger version if you can't read it.


Oh yeah, anyway the scales work. Apparently I'm 81kg.

w00t!

Thursday, 2 July 2009

The Magpie Said

CANTA is the magasine put out by the compulsory student union at the University of Canterbury. In the 25/May 09 issue of CANTA the political commentator Hayden Munro (aka the Magpie) wrote an article entitled "Ok, this could get kind of tricky" which he has also posted on his blog. In his article he discusses minority politics in general, the "Christian Right" and more specifically, myself. It is essentially a response to an article of mine that was published in the previous edition of CANTA which discussed abortion law in New Zealand. Hayden is not only on the ball when it comes to discussing this subject, but he does so in an impressively balanced and reasoned way. I'll let you have a read of the article - all I want to do here is address one or two comments in the article which Hayden's thrashed out onto the keyboard perhaps a wee bit too quickly.

"Andy is... strongly against any gay marriage"

As far as I know I haven't stated this anywhere. Just to be clarfiy though, I believe homosexuality is immoral, but if two homosexuals wish to enter into a civil union - to be officially recognised as a couple before the State, I have no problem with this. However the issue of gay marriage is so convoluted that I will not deal with it right now.


yellow card: that's not on!
"...even intelligent, dedicated activist’s [sic] like Andy can slip into really rabid rhetoric. Insinuating that Helen Clark shouldn’t try to save a dieing [sic] friend, since she believes in abortion, is not going to win you any friends amongst moderates."

That's just bad logic. One thing I try hard to avoid is rabid rhetoric, character slurs, exaggerations and the like. Helen Clark should be commended for attempting to resucitate her dying friend. However I was questioning the inconsistency in her actions rather than implying that she should have left her friend to die.

My major ideological disagreement with Hayden in this article though, deals with the issue of homosexual couples adopting children. He states that legislating against this would "deny them the chance to raise a family, one of the fundamental joys in life". Heck yeah, I completely agree. But that's their problem. I stand by my comment on 4 May, "It is empirically evident that two homosexual adults are unable to provide children with the stability and security that is essential for every child as he or she grows up." Raising children isn't a flippin' game or an experiment or a right. Rather, it is a privilege.

But what's with the magpie? Hayden's weekly column is named "Quardle Ardle Oodle Wardle Ardle Doodle" and is a reference to a famous New Zealand poem. Flicking through the glossy colour pages of half-clothed drunken students, bizarre and disturbed cartoons, screeds of large advertisments and (almost always) boring opinion pieces is Hayden's political column which is more often than not a good read in a particularly mind-numbing lecture. Anyway, oneday the overpaid staff at CANTA may get their act together and regularly upload Hayden's column which you should be able to find here.

Give Me Something For The Pain


smoking a joint
"Give me something for the pain, Give me something for the blues..." - the Stereo sitting under the single raised bunk bed is playing the Bon Jovi tape that I bought along with a collection of classic 80's tapes in a multi-fluorescent patterned cassette-tape carry-bag at a garage sale a while back. My cup of coffee is empty and the heat from my computer's power-supply helps prevent my blood from freezing in my arteries as I sit in this freezer they call my room. I am reminded of the Medicinal Cannabis Ammendment Bill which Metiria Turei put in the ballot back in June 2006. Its first reading was tonight where it was defeated with 34 in favour and 86 against.

All five ACT MPs voted in favour of the bill which would have made a provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act for seriously sick people to use marijuana for pain relief. Obviously the bill's intention was to get a foot in the door for the ultimate decriminalisation of marijuana use and sale, however it was introduced under the banner of improving health-care in New Zealand. This is a standard method of bringing about social change, as can be illustrated with the passing of Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Law. It was passed under the guise of lowering child-abuse, however its passing is merely one step in the agenda to make children autonomous from their parents: wards of the state.

"We would be sending a signal that it's okay," said National MP Jonathan Coleman who is also a doctor. This is a commonly held postion however it doesn't make sense. There are plenty of things that are not ok, and yet we do not legislate against them. By simply decriminalising weed, the government would be admitting that something was illegal that should not have been. Rather than positively making the drug legal, they are instead passively decriminalising it: making no ruling either for or against it.

Why should weed be illegal? "Because it's bad for society" comes the standard reply. Apply this principle consistently across all facets of society, and you have a totalitarian state where even an individual's thoughts which are deemed to negatively affect society are legislated against. There are so many things that are bad for society. Letting young children watch too much low-quality television will wreck their minds, however there is no legislation against this. Why not? Quite simply because it is a matter of what is often called "common sense". Legislating against the excessive watching of low-quality television by young children is not the correct way to address the problem. Likewise, legislating against the use of marajuana is not the correct way to address the problem of the abuse of this drug.

Coming soon at StarStuddedSuperStep.com: An exclusive interview with a marijuana user. If you have a question you would like me to ask, please leave it as a comment.

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

I lol'd

The Weekly Joke continues, this week's one is stolen shamelessly from Scrubone's blog...

Sandy began a job as an elementary school counselor and she was eager to help. One day during recess she noticed a girl standing by herself on one side of a playing field while the rest of the kids enjoyed a game of soccer at the other.
Sandy approached and asked if she was all right.

The girl said she was.

A little while later, however, Sandy noticed the girl was in the same spot, still by herself. Approaching again, Sandy offered, “Would you like me to be your friend?”
The girl hesitated, then said, “Okay,” looking at the woman suspiciously.
Feeling she was making progress, Sandy then asked, “Why are you standing here all alone?”

“Because,” the little girl said with great exasperation, “I’m the goalie!”

Check this out... some blind guys in Baghdad playing soccer.