I used to question the validity of that statement, which was made to us about our own children many years ago now. It was made by a respected friend who had been getting to know us while we were all living in America. At first I put it down to one of those sayings which had no real depth or meaning, but now I think differently. I believe it to be true.
Yes, at first the tables are turned. Your children are young, and you try to be good parents, so you try to make good children. You do your best to give values, manners, and just good common sense into their young lives, and that works for a while. But years pass, and your values, may not become your children's values. Your ideals may not be shared by your children as they find their own way in life, and that is normal, and to be expected. I have seen parents change their values because of their children, but I have been fortunate. That is where the change over happens.
I now see in my own children, the same interest and drive, to instil values and manners and good common sense into their own children, and once again I feel proud. The cycle continues. But it's more than that, I feel privileged to be the Dad whose children now, perhaps unknowingly, give me the honour of making me a 'good parent'. That honour is not mine alone. It also belongs to another, and more so, but she is not here to see the benefit or feel the pride, but I know she would approve and also feel that pride too. Thanks Margaret, you did a great job, and without you, who knows how things would have turned out. You have earned your reward!!
The aim is to provide a stimulating mix of personal opinions (from a mainstream Christian worldview), and associated comments, which will be accepted and published if they comply with the usual courtesy and decency.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Legalise Drugs?
We are being asked to consider the legalisation of drugs in Scotland, yet again. Not just the so called soft drugs like cannabis, but hard drugs like heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine! Not surprisingly there is a wide difference of opinion among the 'experts', and their views are expressed so strongly. The arguments for legalising drugs stretch from the revenue they would raise for the tax man, to the cost change to the NHS. Many people are in the debate, each with their own slant on what to do.
The one point which I have not heard expressed by any of these experts is the issue of whether drug use is right or wrong! We seem to have lost the ability of saying, you don't do this 'because it is wrong'! I believe we are scared that someone will think we are too religious, or too moral, and this is not the case. Why do we shy away from saying something is wrong or immoral, especially when drug use causes so much harm and damage to the user, the family, and the wider community? I am not aware of any benefits from using heroin, cocaine or crack cocaine, by any member of society, so why should it be legalised? Some folks don't want us to criminalise the poor pushers! Why not?? Just because the problem is getting out of hand? Or because the police and courts can't keep up with the problem?
The one thing most experts agree on is that hard drug use is a bad thing. Thank goodness for that. Do we really want to start down the slippery slope of legalising drugs for any reason at all? Cost should not be an argument. This is a simple right or wrong issue, and we shouldn't be sand dancing around excuses for legalising a destructive element in our society. Our drug users will still use it. The pushers will still be in business, and anyone who thinks differently is living on another planet. Our already big drugs problem in Scotland, will become an even bigger problem, and we would have no one to blame but ourselves.
Drug use is such a blight on our society, that we should be increasing the penalty for pushing to a real life sentence. Any crime caused by drug users stems from the dealers, so they must shoulder a very high responsibility. A life sentence is only reasonable, and I don't mean a tariff which means the perpretator could be out in 18 months! If we need more prisons, then build them. As for the users, anyone who commits crime because of drugs should get 5 years minimum, with no remission for good behaviour. If pushers, dealers and users are in prison, they are certainly not causing society a problem. No bail should be allowed, which only lets them out to do it again. The nice social service people who think these folks have a bad deal, should be locked up with them, until their 'patients' have come off their drug of choice. That's right their drug use is by choice. We are on the way to making irresponsible drinking, and drink driving an anti social thing, so we can and should do the same thing with the more devastating problem of drug use.
Did you also know that the social services can now provide a drug to family in the event that someone they know overdoses and stops breathing? The rep talking about it on TV says it will bring a dying junkie back to life, 'just like Lazarus- Instantly'! I just hope that the money to provide this drug does not deny any kind of drugs for kids with leukaemia, or cancer, or heart disease! We keep being told that the NHS must make difficult choices. Well here's an easy one. Divert the 'Lazarus drug' money from the junkie to the person who has not chosen their disease as a lifestyle add-on!
Lets not pussyfoot round the issue. Lets face it down, and head on. It will not happen overnight, but see the problem for what it is. Self inflicted and wrong!! Mind you we need strong politicians to make it happen, and that's the weak link in the chain. They talk it up, but play it down, and we, the ordinary person in the street, have to live with their inaction in our communities. The longer we leave it, the harder it will become to rid the streets of a menace to our children and grand children.
The one point which I have not heard expressed by any of these experts is the issue of whether drug use is right or wrong! We seem to have lost the ability of saying, you don't do this 'because it is wrong'! I believe we are scared that someone will think we are too religious, or too moral, and this is not the case. Why do we shy away from saying something is wrong or immoral, especially when drug use causes so much harm and damage to the user, the family, and the wider community? I am not aware of any benefits from using heroin, cocaine or crack cocaine, by any member of society, so why should it be legalised? Some folks don't want us to criminalise the poor pushers! Why not?? Just because the problem is getting out of hand? Or because the police and courts can't keep up with the problem?
The one thing most experts agree on is that hard drug use is a bad thing. Thank goodness for that. Do we really want to start down the slippery slope of legalising drugs for any reason at all? Cost should not be an argument. This is a simple right or wrong issue, and we shouldn't be sand dancing around excuses for legalising a destructive element in our society. Our drug users will still use it. The pushers will still be in business, and anyone who thinks differently is living on another planet. Our already big drugs problem in Scotland, will become an even bigger problem, and we would have no one to blame but ourselves.
Drug use is such a blight on our society, that we should be increasing the penalty for pushing to a real life sentence. Any crime caused by drug users stems from the dealers, so they must shoulder a very high responsibility. A life sentence is only reasonable, and I don't mean a tariff which means the perpretator could be out in 18 months! If we need more prisons, then build them. As for the users, anyone who commits crime because of drugs should get 5 years minimum, with no remission for good behaviour. If pushers, dealers and users are in prison, they are certainly not causing society a problem. No bail should be allowed, which only lets them out to do it again. The nice social service people who think these folks have a bad deal, should be locked up with them, until their 'patients' have come off their drug of choice. That's right their drug use is by choice. We are on the way to making irresponsible drinking, and drink driving an anti social thing, so we can and should do the same thing with the more devastating problem of drug use.
Did you also know that the social services can now provide a drug to family in the event that someone they know overdoses and stops breathing? The rep talking about it on TV says it will bring a dying junkie back to life, 'just like Lazarus- Instantly'! I just hope that the money to provide this drug does not deny any kind of drugs for kids with leukaemia, or cancer, or heart disease! We keep being told that the NHS must make difficult choices. Well here's an easy one. Divert the 'Lazarus drug' money from the junkie to the person who has not chosen their disease as a lifestyle add-on!
Lets not pussyfoot round the issue. Lets face it down, and head on. It will not happen overnight, but see the problem for what it is. Self inflicted and wrong!! Mind you we need strong politicians to make it happen, and that's the weak link in the chain. They talk it up, but play it down, and we, the ordinary person in the street, have to live with their inaction in our communities. The longer we leave it, the harder it will become to rid the streets of a menace to our children and grand children.
Monday, 16 August 2010
Is That Really It??
One of the great freedoms we have, in every walk of life, is our freedom to choose our religion, faith, or perhaps to decide that there is no supreme being, and what we have in this world is all there will ever be. Many very learned and scholarly people have spent untold hours, and written books on whether there is a God or not. I am not a scholar in the same way these people are, and there are differing views even amongst the scientific community. There are many scientists who are convinced that there is a God, and similarly, many who think there is not. I could not enter a scientific debate with these scholars and philosophers, so I won't.
We are entitled to differ in this very basic question, and we do. Therefore I do not want to question how those who come to the conclusion that there is no God, got there. At least everyone knows where they stand. There are those too, perhaps like me, who are very sure of their belief in God, and have the faith to support it. In my limited way, I have read books, questioned myself, and spoken to others, to come to my own conclusion that there is a God, and that He is not far from any of us. I also believe the Bible is given to help us find the way.
So we have two opposing camps. Those who accept there is a God, and those who don't, but in each case the decision was made after due thought and consideration at our own level. We are entitled to that basic freedom. However, there is a group in the middle. People who have not really given it a lot of thought, and who certainly don't live one way or the other, but who call themselves by a vague name. A name like, Catholic, or Protestant, or C of S, or C of E, or Baptist, and the list could go on. They will take their children to church to get baptised, get married, or be buried with a church's blessing. They might even go to church on a special occasion like Christmas, but have not committed to any real or life changing faith.
At the end of our time here on this earth, I find myself asking the question again, 'is this really all there is to my life'? It's the same question those scholars can't agree on. We get side tracked by questions like, 'why all the suffering', and fail to ask 'why am I here'? So as my life draws to a close someday (and it certainly will!), I will not be asking myself 'is that really it'? My faith allows me to believe in life after death, and the chance to see a God who loves me, and loved ones who have died before me. It's my basic freedom, and based on many of life's choices and circumstances. The great thing is, I can live and die with confidence, and that gives me comfort right here, right now. I like that.
We are entitled to differ in this very basic question, and we do. Therefore I do not want to question how those who come to the conclusion that there is no God, got there. At least everyone knows where they stand. There are those too, perhaps like me, who are very sure of their belief in God, and have the faith to support it. In my limited way, I have read books, questioned myself, and spoken to others, to come to my own conclusion that there is a God, and that He is not far from any of us. I also believe the Bible is given to help us find the way.
So we have two opposing camps. Those who accept there is a God, and those who don't, but in each case the decision was made after due thought and consideration at our own level. We are entitled to that basic freedom. However, there is a group in the middle. People who have not really given it a lot of thought, and who certainly don't live one way or the other, but who call themselves by a vague name. A name like, Catholic, or Protestant, or C of S, or C of E, or Baptist, and the list could go on. They will take their children to church to get baptised, get married, or be buried with a church's blessing. They might even go to church on a special occasion like Christmas, but have not committed to any real or life changing faith.
At the end of our time here on this earth, I find myself asking the question again, 'is this really all there is to my life'? It's the same question those scholars can't agree on. We get side tracked by questions like, 'why all the suffering', and fail to ask 'why am I here'? So as my life draws to a close someday (and it certainly will!), I will not be asking myself 'is that really it'? My faith allows me to believe in life after death, and the chance to see a God who loves me, and loved ones who have died before me. It's my basic freedom, and based on many of life's choices and circumstances. The great thing is, I can live and die with confidence, and that gives me comfort right here, right now. I like that.
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Some Day You Will!
Maybe not now, but at some time in the future, you will. And you will mean it. Deep down, I think we all have a need that only this will satisfy, and we may not even understand why at the time! During times of stress, or anxiety, or loss, or happiness, or sadness, or guilt, we will find our minds turning to this, and it works for all. Old and young, male and female, rich and poor. We are all equal when big things happen in our lives, and that's because we are all human. Not only that, but people of ALL faiths, and even NO faith will do it!
When you go through a tough time especially, you don't want to sound like a complainer, so you may not even tell anyone about your real deep, heartfelt sorrows, so you harbour them, and that doesn't help either. When we don't know which way to turn, we will then do it. We will all utter a prayer. Maybe a very short one, and maybe even to a 'God' you don't understand too well, or even know at all, but if the internal struggle is bad enough, you will pray. Silently, or out loud, it doesn't matter, and when we do pray, it is heard, even if we don't think it is! This is more, so much more than the 'omg' we hear so often, and so glibly. For that reason, I do not like to see it in print, or hear it in conversation.
Sometimes an occasion will arise when you don't want to share your thoughts and fears with people who will just talk about you, and your problem, but you want to tell some folks who you know will pray, and take it to a higher place! I feel privileged and blessed to have such friends, and when the need comes up, I know they will pray for me, my family, and our situation. This sounds crazy to anyone who is not a 'prayer' normally, but believe me, it does make a difference to the person (or people) who need that prayer. So, to those who read this, who know, and who pray, I say thank you, and God Bless you. What about the answers, I hear you ask? Let me finish with this thought. "The prayer is more important than the answer".
When you go through a tough time especially, you don't want to sound like a complainer, so you may not even tell anyone about your real deep, heartfelt sorrows, so you harbour them, and that doesn't help either. When we don't know which way to turn, we will then do it. We will all utter a prayer. Maybe a very short one, and maybe even to a 'God' you don't understand too well, or even know at all, but if the internal struggle is bad enough, you will pray. Silently, or out loud, it doesn't matter, and when we do pray, it is heard, even if we don't think it is! This is more, so much more than the 'omg' we hear so often, and so glibly. For that reason, I do not like to see it in print, or hear it in conversation.
Sometimes an occasion will arise when you don't want to share your thoughts and fears with people who will just talk about you, and your problem, but you want to tell some folks who you know will pray, and take it to a higher place! I feel privileged and blessed to have such friends, and when the need comes up, I know they will pray for me, my family, and our situation. This sounds crazy to anyone who is not a 'prayer' normally, but believe me, it does make a difference to the person (or people) who need that prayer. So, to those who read this, who know, and who pray, I say thank you, and God Bless you. What about the answers, I hear you ask? Let me finish with this thought. "The prayer is more important than the answer".
Thursday, 12 August 2010
Alcohol - Minimum Pricing (again)
It is being raised again, but this time by the Prime Minister. He was responding to the challenge we all face, up and down the UK, to clean up the streets of under age binge drinking, which affects us all, and especially the responsible city centre party goers. I don't agree with all that the SNP stand for, but they have got it spot on when they called for minimum pricing in Scotland, where the problem is huge, and more so at weekends.
Of course, as expected, the other opponents of this idea, come out of the woodwork to tell us it won't make any difference. We have to find another way, they say. One of these apologists was on the news today. He was a spokesman for the supermarket chain, Morrisons, and talked an awful lot, but didn't actually say anything. He defended the cheap booze on sale in their aisles, and said it was to compliment their food sales! Oh brother! Don't let anyone fool you. Supermarkets don't lose money on the so called, 'lost leaders' where they undercut the price of alcohol. They have the nerve to say that the price and availability is not a part of the problem. When will they wake up and smell the roses, or should I say, the vomit!
You don't have to be very smart or clever to see why they like to sell cheap booze. It's good for income. If it really was a money loser, do you think they would be doing it? They must think Joe Public's head buttons up the back. I wish they would treat us as grown up, and accept the link between the price of alcohol, and violence at all levels in our community.
I am glad the question has been brought into the open again, and maybe since the Prime Minister is sympathetic to the problem and solution, we might get somewhere. The supermarkets are behaving exactly like the tobacco companies who said there was no link between smoking and ill health. It didn't take long to see the results, and I suspect it will be the same with minimum pricing. As I have said before, we just need some politicians with bottle to lead the way.
Of course, as expected, the other opponents of this idea, come out of the woodwork to tell us it won't make any difference. We have to find another way, they say. One of these apologists was on the news today. He was a spokesman for the supermarket chain, Morrisons, and talked an awful lot, but didn't actually say anything. He defended the cheap booze on sale in their aisles, and said it was to compliment their food sales! Oh brother! Don't let anyone fool you. Supermarkets don't lose money on the so called, 'lost leaders' where they undercut the price of alcohol. They have the nerve to say that the price and availability is not a part of the problem. When will they wake up and smell the roses, or should I say, the vomit!
You don't have to be very smart or clever to see why they like to sell cheap booze. It's good for income. If it really was a money loser, do you think they would be doing it? They must think Joe Public's head buttons up the back. I wish they would treat us as grown up, and accept the link between the price of alcohol, and violence at all levels in our community.
I am glad the question has been brought into the open again, and maybe since the Prime Minister is sympathetic to the problem and solution, we might get somewhere. The supermarkets are behaving exactly like the tobacco companies who said there was no link between smoking and ill health. It didn't take long to see the results, and I suspect it will be the same with minimum pricing. As I have said before, we just need some politicians with bottle to lead the way.
Sunday, 8 August 2010
Compassion and Justice
It was a year ago that the Scottish government released the Lockerbie Bomber, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, on compassionate grounds to die in his home country, Libya. He had three months or so to live we were told. A passionate debate erupted on the streets and in the media, of the rights and wrongs of the decision, and that debate has never really gone away.
He has outlived his original estimate by a factor of four, and although in ill health, he is with his family, in his home country, and treated as a hero in the fight against 'the western culture and religion'. Kenny McAskill saw fit to release him, because he felt 'compassion' for him. Compassion is good and right, but I am not sure we have struck the right balance of justice and compassion here.
Given that this terrorist was released on compassionate grounds, I can only assume that there will be other prisoners who merit that same compassion. Maybe they are terminally ill. Maybe they are gravely ill. Maybe it is a young mother who desperately needs to be with her children. Where do we draw the line of who should benefit from our compassion, and who should not. Strangely, I have not heard of any other prisoners who have been released for the same reason. That alone makes me question the kind of compassion Kenny McAskill used in his decision.
We do not want to drop to the level of vengeance which Cardinal Keith O'Brien accuses the USA of adopting in its justice system, but neither should we free mass murderers because they are very ill. Also, since we don't like it when the USA meddles in our justice system, we should not meddle in theirs. I think the Cardinal stepped outside his bounds with his comments. Since our lifespan is not determined by a doctor, but by that higher power which Mr McAskill talked about, we cannot afford to use compassion as a reason for freedom. If that was truly the case, there would have been many others who would benefit from freedom from prison.
If a terrorist is given compassion, what then do we give to the families of the 270 people who died at his hands? It must be more than compassion, but what is it? A pat on the back, and a 'there there, you will feel better soon' platitude? Because that is what it is, just words, and that same compassion is missing. So what do I think? I reckon Al Megrahi should have lived out the rest of his natural life in prison, or in a prison hospital, no matter the cost. That's not because I do not have compassion, but that justice means I also have compassion for the other innocents who are still living with this terrorists actions, and I have more of it for them.
He has outlived his original estimate by a factor of four, and although in ill health, he is with his family, in his home country, and treated as a hero in the fight against 'the western culture and religion'. Kenny McAskill saw fit to release him, because he felt 'compassion' for him. Compassion is good and right, but I am not sure we have struck the right balance of justice and compassion here.
Given that this terrorist was released on compassionate grounds, I can only assume that there will be other prisoners who merit that same compassion. Maybe they are terminally ill. Maybe they are gravely ill. Maybe it is a young mother who desperately needs to be with her children. Where do we draw the line of who should benefit from our compassion, and who should not. Strangely, I have not heard of any other prisoners who have been released for the same reason. That alone makes me question the kind of compassion Kenny McAskill used in his decision.
We do not want to drop to the level of vengeance which Cardinal Keith O'Brien accuses the USA of adopting in its justice system, but neither should we free mass murderers because they are very ill. Also, since we don't like it when the USA meddles in our justice system, we should not meddle in theirs. I think the Cardinal stepped outside his bounds with his comments. Since our lifespan is not determined by a doctor, but by that higher power which Mr McAskill talked about, we cannot afford to use compassion as a reason for freedom. If that was truly the case, there would have been many others who would benefit from freedom from prison.
If a terrorist is given compassion, what then do we give to the families of the 270 people who died at his hands? It must be more than compassion, but what is it? A pat on the back, and a 'there there, you will feel better soon' platitude? Because that is what it is, just words, and that same compassion is missing. So what do I think? I reckon Al Megrahi should have lived out the rest of his natural life in prison, or in a prison hospital, no matter the cost. That's not because I do not have compassion, but that justice means I also have compassion for the other innocents who are still living with this terrorists actions, and I have more of it for them.
Saturday, 7 August 2010
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.
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.
Moans and Groans
It is just something we do, and we do it so well. We complain, we moan, we groan, and we generally think we have a hard time of it, and our lives are tough. The kind of stuff we complain about, are things like, rain, drizzle, work or the lack of it. Not enough of a salary, or welfare. Kids too noisy or it's a school holiday, had to get up early, had a late night, a friend wasn't nice to you, and the list goes on. We seem to get wound up about some simple things, don't we?
I was reminded just how good we have it, and how comfortable we are in the UK. I think it was Harold McMillan who got into a lot of hot water (politically, in the 50's) for saying, "You've never had it so good", and the truth is, it has continually got better since then.
When you feel bad about your life, have a thought for the 100s of thousands of Pakistani people who have lost their lives, and millions of others who have been made homeless, destitute, desperately ill, have no clean water or clean clothes, and the clothes they stand up in, are all they own in life! All because of rain. The stuff we moan about, but this time causing flooding on a massive scale. Now that's something to complain about, but have you noticed that these folks are too busy rebuilding their shattered lives to moan?
We have no right to moan or groan, do we? Especially about our rain! We've never had it so good!
I was reminded just how good we have it, and how comfortable we are in the UK. I think it was Harold McMillan who got into a lot of hot water (politically, in the 50's) for saying, "You've never had it so good", and the truth is, it has continually got better since then.
When you feel bad about your life, have a thought for the 100s of thousands of Pakistani people who have lost their lives, and millions of others who have been made homeless, destitute, desperately ill, have no clean water or clean clothes, and the clothes they stand up in, are all they own in life! All because of rain. The stuff we moan about, but this time causing flooding on a massive scale. Now that's something to complain about, but have you noticed that these folks are too busy rebuilding their shattered lives to moan?
We have no right to moan or groan, do we? Especially about our rain! We've never had it so good!
RIP Karen Woo
I didn't know Karen Woo. In fact, until today I had never heard of her. She was one of the many unsung, forgotten people who serve poor people in foreign countries where they have no hope of getting that aid from their own government. Karen Woo left a well paid job in the private health care service in the UK (BUPA) and went off to Afghanistan to help provide eye care in the remote areas of that forbidding country, and to those who could not afford it.
The group she was travelling with, were ambushed, and a total of ten volunteer aid workers, including Karen, paid the ultimate price for helping ease the suffering of the Afghan poor. The people who carried out the attack, were from the same Afghan nation they were trying to help. I couldn't help but wonder, why? Make that a BIG WHY?? No matter what I think or feel, I don't think we will get an answer to that 'why' question. I have asked it before, and never got an answer then either.
Maybe the better question would be 'what'? What makes a young professional lady, volunteer to go to a backward, war torn country, to help folks who she doesn't even know? What drives a person, like all those ten who lost their lives, risk everything to help the poor? Part of that answer lies with the group she was associated with. International Assistance Mission (IAM) has been in that country for many years. They travel unarmed, and without an escort. The other part of the answer is that Karen Woo, and many others like her, was a Christian. Called to give help to the poor, she listened, and went, leaving her family and a well paid job behind, prepared to take the risks to personal safety.
The other 'why' question is, 'why did she do it'? I think her conscience drove her. Being a Christian, she answers to a higher power than the terrorist. When I say, Rest in Peace, I mean it. These unsung heroes and heroines will inherit a special place in heaven, where they will be recognised for what they are. Oh, by the way, anyone with a church, or bible background will not miss the initials of the mission she travelled with. 'I AM' in the bible is the name used for God. Almighty God. Karen Woo knew why she was there, and who she served, so I believe she will certainly rest in peace!
The group she was travelling with, were ambushed, and a total of ten volunteer aid workers, including Karen, paid the ultimate price for helping ease the suffering of the Afghan poor. The people who carried out the attack, were from the same Afghan nation they were trying to help. I couldn't help but wonder, why? Make that a BIG WHY?? No matter what I think or feel, I don't think we will get an answer to that 'why' question. I have asked it before, and never got an answer then either.
Maybe the better question would be 'what'? What makes a young professional lady, volunteer to go to a backward, war torn country, to help folks who she doesn't even know? What drives a person, like all those ten who lost their lives, risk everything to help the poor? Part of that answer lies with the group she was associated with. International Assistance Mission (IAM) has been in that country for many years. They travel unarmed, and without an escort. The other part of the answer is that Karen Woo, and many others like her, was a Christian. Called to give help to the poor, she listened, and went, leaving her family and a well paid job behind, prepared to take the risks to personal safety.
The other 'why' question is, 'why did she do it'? I think her conscience drove her. Being a Christian, she answers to a higher power than the terrorist. When I say, Rest in Peace, I mean it. These unsung heroes and heroines will inherit a special place in heaven, where they will be recognised for what they are. Oh, by the way, anyone with a church, or bible background will not miss the initials of the mission she travelled with. 'I AM' in the bible is the name used for God. Almighty God. Karen Woo knew why she was there, and who she served, so I believe she will certainly rest in peace!
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Terrorism Support
David Cameron seems to have got himself into some political trouble by suggesting that Pakistan was playing a dual role in the cause of terrorism on the world stage. He is being criticised by many world leaders who seem more interested in Politically Correct Politics, than in reality, or truth. Without the truth, we will never be able to tackle the root of any problem.
Some facts. The US 9/11 terrorists were partly trained in the terror camps of Pakistan. The 7/7 London bombers were trained in the terror camps of Pakistan. Al Qaeda operates and trains in Pakistan. Bin Laden is holed up in Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border. The Glasgow Airport bombers were trained in Pakistan. Do you see a common thread here? There are constant reminders in the media of other terrorism activities within our own country, of terror cells funded, supported, with training provided, directly or indirectly, by Pakistan. We are talking common knowledge here, not some state secret!
It is also worth noting, or remembering, that the key goals of Islam are world religious domination, and the destruction of the country and state of Israel. Putting it plainly, that's the overthrow of the UK, and its control by Islamic Sharia Law. While we are cosying up to all things Islamic, and trying to understand the hearts of our 'brothers', lets not forget all that it means. As a nation, we are bending over backwards to accommodate elements of the Islamic tradition and religion, including the use of Sharia Law, and it being used alongside our own laws, which are based on a Christian tradition and foundation. We need to take great care as this will be a one way street.
So, back to David Cameron. I hope he doesn't back down or apologise for his comments. They are truthful, candid, and a timely warning about a country which looks the other way while paying lip service to the cause of world peace, and the fight against terrorism. I do not think they can be fully trusted while so much terror is hatched on their soil, but seem so powerless to act against it. Maybe if we saw the Pakistan leadership and government coming out strongly against the terror camps, and extreme Islamic teaching which condones violence in their quest for world domination, we could believe they really were trying. As it is, there is no strong evidence that they want to change. I think it suits them to talk about being anti terrorism, while not acting against it. The bible talks about not being able to trust a double minded person.
I would rather have the teachings of the bible, than the misuse and abuses of Islam and the excesses of Sharia Law.
Some facts. The US 9/11 terrorists were partly trained in the terror camps of Pakistan. The 7/7 London bombers were trained in the terror camps of Pakistan. Al Qaeda operates and trains in Pakistan. Bin Laden is holed up in Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border. The Glasgow Airport bombers were trained in Pakistan. Do you see a common thread here? There are constant reminders in the media of other terrorism activities within our own country, of terror cells funded, supported, with training provided, directly or indirectly, by Pakistan. We are talking common knowledge here, not some state secret!
It is also worth noting, or remembering, that the key goals of Islam are world religious domination, and the destruction of the country and state of Israel. Putting it plainly, that's the overthrow of the UK, and its control by Islamic Sharia Law. While we are cosying up to all things Islamic, and trying to understand the hearts of our 'brothers', lets not forget all that it means. As a nation, we are bending over backwards to accommodate elements of the Islamic tradition and religion, including the use of Sharia Law, and it being used alongside our own laws, which are based on a Christian tradition and foundation. We need to take great care as this will be a one way street.
So, back to David Cameron. I hope he doesn't back down or apologise for his comments. They are truthful, candid, and a timely warning about a country which looks the other way while paying lip service to the cause of world peace, and the fight against terrorism. I do not think they can be fully trusted while so much terror is hatched on their soil, but seem so powerless to act against it. Maybe if we saw the Pakistan leadership and government coming out strongly against the terror camps, and extreme Islamic teaching which condones violence in their quest for world domination, we could believe they really were trying. As it is, there is no strong evidence that they want to change. I think it suits them to talk about being anti terrorism, while not acting against it. The bible talks about not being able to trust a double minded person.
I would rather have the teachings of the bible, than the misuse and abuses of Islam and the excesses of Sharia Law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)