AntiSocial Media

If you live in the UK, you will know the sad story of Charlie Gard, a little 11 month old baby who had a life limiting disease, and how his mum and dad had been through the court system, trying everything in their power to save him. His life maintaining tubes and medical paraphernalia were recommended to be removed to allow the little boy die ‘with dignity’. His parents were distraught, and were been faced with a situation which at the end of the day is the life and death of their only son, and one which no parent should ever have to face. This whole situation was played out in the media court of worldwide public opinion, which made it worse. I even saw a USA newspaper report which blamed the UK NHS and the government for Charlie’s death. In my opinion, that is one country which has no room to talk about health care and politics.

As if this heartache wasn’t bad enough, thousands of mindless people took to ‘social’ media to question the medical staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital, and their care for Charlie. Death threats were even made on so called ‘social’ media against the very people who cared night and day to keep this little soul alive while a court case raged around him. All the medical opinion was that his condition was irreversible and his life support should be removed, but these ‘not so wise guys’ who make Facebook and Twitter (there are other social media sites) their weapon of choice, think they know better. No qualifications or medical experience. No connection to the family. No heart. Just anger at a hospital who do what they can to improve the health of children when they can, and are distressed when they get too close to their tiny charges, and the unthinkable happens. Then there was the American doctor who raised false hope by claiming his revolutionary experimental treatment  could turn Charlie’s situation around. It took him months to come to London to see the baby for himself and view the case notes, and it was too late to prove anything. That speaks volumes. Heartless? Do I hear a cash register ringing in my ears? The Pope and Donald Trump also offered ‘any help they could give’, but that went silent as well.

If there was ever a case for believing our society has reached the tipping point of understanding true compassion, this is it. These thousands of mindless trolls represent the kind of society we belong to, and I am ashamed that I am seen as a part of it. This is only one part of an obviously broken community, country, and world. I believe the only thing that will help is the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will sort out the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff, the good from the evil. Only then will we rest in the assurance that the death of this little boy has been defeated, and our literally ‘God-less’ society has been set straight.

ABC

The leader of a UK main political party recently announced that he was standing down. At the recent General Election his party won more seats, with an increase in membership. So, why the resignation of an apparently successful leader?

Tim Farron is a Christian, and was not afraid to say it. He paid the price because the media hounded him to explain his views on homosexuality, same sex marriage, abortion etc. which he had tried to keep separate from his politics. As a Christian, of course he is out of step with the mainstream secular, ‘godless’ society and the media made no bones about making him a target. I am forced to ask an obvious, but simple question. If Tim Farron was a Muslim or a Hindu would it have caused such a stir? Absolutely not (in my view)! Our once ‘Christian nation’ now adopts the ABC approach. That’s “Anything But Christianity”. We seem to take delight in running down anything or anyone “Christian”, but the same rules do not apply to other faith groups. Is that because Christians are an easy target for a lazy ‘put down’ by the media? After all, Christianity is based on love and forgiveness, not fighting, revenge, or jihad.

Our Western nations in general, are (or at least were) mainly Christian, forming laws based on the principles contained in the Bible. Not so much now, as we are more than happy to use Christlike people fodder for comedians, atheists and naysayers. We should not be surprised, after all Jesus warned us that we would be criticized and insulted because of our faith, and he should know, after all He was cruelly tortured and murdered! Knowing what lay ahead, Jesus warned us with these words:

People will hate you because you belong to the Son of Man. They will make you leave their group. They will insult you. They will think it is wrong even to say your name. When these things happen, know that great blessings belong to you. Luke 6:22 ERV  

Celebrity Death

There have been a few famous celebrities who have died recently, some better known than others, but each one gets the same reporting importance. Rightly so, because death is no respecter of persons and every loss is significant and important to those left behind, and even many grieving people who didn’t know them personally. In essence, we identify with a person who can excite us, make us laugh or cry, and do good in the community. We mourn the death of people we respect and honour.

I wonder what the media and community would make of the situation in the unlikely event that any one of these celebrities suddenly appeared on our news screens again as if nothing had happened to them, and it had all been false reporting? The world would buzz with excitement that our ‘beloved celebrity’ was back with us alive and well! Maybe then we could believe that death is not the end of things.

We should never lose sight of the fact that there already has been such a miracle, where a good person was killed and a few days later walked the streets with friends who had trouble believing their eyes and ears. Jesus died, rose, and is now in heaven speaking on our behalf to His Father God, and we treat this with a shallow level of importance. History confirms the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and we do celebrate that resurrection in a fitting way with chocolate eggs and fluffy bunnies. What?! Would you be happy with that for your celebrity? Why then, do we accept these insignificant trappings as symbolic of the coming back to life of the person who died for us, to give us the gift of salvation and eternal life?

Next time the media gushes over the life and death of a celebrity, pause for a moment and recognise the comparison of screen time given to them, against the historical fact that Jesus also died, but significantly is the only person who rose to secure our victory over death. After all, as a result, we have the prospect of a real eternal rest in heaven. So, let’s never forget or minimise the comforting words that Jesus said in John 11:25 ...“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.”

Facebook - Good or Bad?

The social media site Facebook seems to divide people into two very different and opposing groups. Those who don’t have a problem with it, and probably use it, and those others who have no time for the nonsense which pervades its pages. It is usually the case, that the latter group are very vocal in their distaste of the medium as a way of communicating. So, I have a simple question for you. Does Facebook do more harm than good?

There can be no doubt that Facebook is successful, with over 2 billion active users worldwide by Sep 2012, and used extensively by all ages. But that alone does not mean it is a good thing. I know generalising is not a good thing, but I find that regular internet users are normally on Facebook (ok, ok so not in all cases!) and those not on Facebook are a very vocal resistance group. Maybe there is good reason for this opposition, but what is it based on?

As a Facebook user, let me give you some annoying irritations:

* The posting of nonsense

* Sharing personal stuff that should stay private

* Expressing bad language or outrageous opinions

* Posting something publicly that you wouldn’t say in person

There are these benefits:

* Choosing my contacts (friends)

* Offensive people or posts can be ‘unfriended’ or ‘blocked’

* Finding and keeping in touch with old long lost friends

* Using ‘Groups’ to keep contacts together, for example a Church

For me, it comes down to a communication tool which I may, or may not choose to use. I have given you a start, so what do you think? Is Facebook a good thing, or do the negatives outweigh the positives such that we should pull out?

Influence or Reflection?

The following story was released on the Christian Institute website, and shows a disturbing trend.

“Popular soaps EastEnders and Emmerdale are set to launch three more homosexual characters between them in the coming months. Homosexual lobby group Stonewall has previously boasted about its influence on TV soaps – citing one character who wore a campaign shirt from the group. ITV soap Coronation Street has already caused a storm of controversy with its homosexual characters – and some of its former stars have expressed doubts about its growing number of same-sex plotlines.

Last month art critic and TV personality Brian Sewell hit out at the excessive number of homosexuals, transsexuals, and teenage lesbian characters on Coronation Street. Mr Sewell, also attacked the same-sex storylines on EastEnders. He said soaps were being used as “sexual propaganda”. In May former Corrie star Nick Cochrane, who played Andy McDonald, commented on the number of same-sex storylines on the soap. He said: “Would one road in a working class area generally produce that number of gay people?””

There has been a long dispute over whether the media (especially TV) influences society, or just reflects it. I have already cast my vote on that issue long before this particular article was published. I would draw your attention to the bold type phrase in the release above. I have no doubt that homosexual groups, like Stonewall, have a clear, direct, and unambiguous agenda. They don't shy away from stating it, and are happy to repeat it as often as they get the chance. Their role in society is to 'educate' us into accepting that their way of life is not only good, but desirable. They don't want to stop at equality, they want to be superior. They are a protected species, a bit like the 'cuckoo'. At this point you are possibly thinking that I am that over-used word, 'homophobic'.

Like you, I also know that there are some very 'nice' homosexuals, but 'nice' does not equal 'right'! The Bible tells us to love the sinner, but not the sin. I also believe as moral and ethical Christians, we should be trying to balance the scales quite a bit. Stonewall does not have a monopoly on truth or justice, nor is it holding up any shining light for our youth to follow. Unfortunately, my views are open to be seen as intolerant and wrong in the eyes of the homosexual community, but am I allowed to call them 'abnormal' or 'unnatural' or 'sinful'? Apparently not, so the scales of debate are unbalanced. As unbalanced as Stonewall itself has helped to make it.

So, as a nation of addicted TV 'soap' watchers, what are we going to do? Will we stop watching Emmerdale, Eastenders, or Coronation Street? If not, why not? It is difficult to defend. If we don't, I suggest we are condoning and supporting not only Stonewall, but the very abhorrent and immoral lifestyle they represent. What about the moral scales of right and wrong? Are we going to be happy to leave them alone for another while, and pretend the problem is not that big? That is not a question for a nation, or even a street, it is a question for you and for me. It has become personal! Another question for you; who really are the intolerant extremists in our society?

Another Mary Whitehouse - Please?

Mary Whitehouse was a household name some years ago, vilified  and mocked by many, but respected by others. She has had a film made in her 'honour' where she was put down as a bigot and a short tempered, unbalanced woman. I think the film makers missed the point, and may even be living to regret their bias against the greatest voice of the television viewer in the UK.


You only need to be one minute after the 9pm so called watershed of 'adult' TV, for it to engulf you. The producers seem to be in some kind of race to be the one who can show the programme with the most cursing, swearing, crudeness, vulgarity, profanity, gratuitous violence, and taking the Lord's name in vain! We have done ourselves no favours by going down the road of 'anything goes permissiveness' in our media. And it's not just after 9pm. Take the rose coloured glasses off, as you watch some of the content on the major channels BEFORE 9pm. We have now changed the rules on what is offensive, and tolerate more 'mild' swearing and pornographic innuendo when our children are watching, and the programme makers know it. TV in the UK has become a minefield for any parent who wants to keep an eye on what their children are watching. Gone are the days when you could leave a young one in front of the telly while you caught up on the jobs around the house.


Mary Whitehouse was branded as an old fuddy-duddy, behind the times, and standing in the way of progress. We have paid a great price in our quest for progress, and in my opinion, the price is too high. We have too few shows which can be classed as 'family entertainment' and instead, we have a diet of movies and shows which would never have been shown a mere five years ago. We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and are in danger of raising a generation who have lost their childhood innocence by the time they were leaving primary school. For all she was portrayed as, Mary at least stood by her convictions, and could see the time when we would be 'watching people make love in our own living rooms'. She was laughed to scorn, but how right she was, and are we any better for not listening? I don't think so.


So, please, can we have another Mary Whitehouse in the UK? Someone who is not ashamed of their stand on the moral rights and wrongs, and how we use our media, especially television. I am tired of looking for a programme to watch, which is decent (oh, am I allowed to say that?), and as I hop from channel to channel see and hear a tirade of bad language (so called comedians are the worst offenders) and inappropriate so called love scenes, where we have totally devalued the meaning of love? I have found myself giving the TV a black eye (turning it off) more and more, and listening to some music. The alternative is to throw it out of the window! Maybe if more people switched off, the advertisers would take notice, and then the programmes would be changed! Pressing for good morality might not change things, but the lack of advertising money does talk, and talk loud! A change is long overdue, and we owe it to our next generation to turn it around, because sadly it's too late for this one.

Getting Nasty

There is only a short 48 hours until the nation goes to the polls to determine the nature of the next government. I have already voted, using my postal vote, but most other folks will take a trip to the polling stations on Thursday 6 May 2010!


You must have noticed that all the candidates are getting as much as they can into the last few hours of their campaigns. After all, when a balanced or hung parliament is very possible, it is understandable that they are out campaigning hard for every vote, and rightly so.


The side of the campaign which I am finding more and more distasteful, is the way the media is conducting themselves. They have had a great time over the past few weeks, basking in their own piece of reflected glory, as they look for gaffes and headlines, but it is starting to turn nasty. Very nasty. I notice that every TV presenter wants to put every politician under as much pressure as possible, and it doesn't really matter how they do it, or what tactics they use. 


The people I refer to are Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman in particular, but the attitude applies across the board. It's like they are in the death throes of the election, and want a bit of publicity for themselves. I am no sympathiser for the politicians, but can these interviewers not let them speak for themselves, without continually putting words into their mouths? Having followed most of the election programming so far, all I can say is, thank goodness it is almost over, because I have had just about enough of the big headed, arrogant, loud, 'see me' interviewers that I can take. 


At this point I now see the media as worse than the politicians (even the bad ones), and that is saying something!!