These are the real demons

Evil has penned another name for itself, in the name of the Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN).  An undercover report by Sky News has found out that this so-called church has been telling HIV sufferers that go to them to throw away their medication and go start families because they have been cured by the power of God.

WHAT THE HELL!?

A sprinkling of water and a few words shouted over a person isn't going to drive any illness out of a person's body and yet these people have the audacity to claim a 100% success rate at curing HIV sufferers!  And as a result of people believing this, at least 6 known people have died.  People who didn't need to suffer and die when real medicine and real professionals can help keep them alive and living as comfortably and normally as possible!

One pastor, Rachel Holmes, told one of the undercover reporters (who is a real HIV sufferer) that if she continues to vomit or suffer from diarrhea, she should not take her medication - it's evidence that the disease is leaving her body.  Never mind that this is already a recognised condition associated with HIV!  It's easy to say perhaps they deserved to die for beliving this drivel, but these people would have been desperate and looking for a permanent cure.  So they become easy prey for these vultures who call themselves pastors and prophets. 

And to me, the cherry on this sundae of disaster is the fact SCOAN is registered in the UK as a charity.  It's almost ironic, but I seriously hope the Charity Commision revokes that.  Why should these people get rich off the backs of vulnerable people and the country by peddling death and stupidity?

What has the church got to say about this whole debacle?

"We are not the Healer - God is the Healer. Never a sickness God cannot heal. Never a disease God cannot cure. Never a burden God cannot bear. Never a problem God cannot solve.
"To His power, nothing is impossible. We have not done anything to bring about healing, deliverance or prosperity. If somebody is healed, it is God who heals.
"We must have a genuine desire if we come to God. We are not in position to question anybody's genuine desire. Only God knows if one comes with true desire. Only God can determine this.
"That is why, if anybody comes in the name of God, we pray for them. The outcome of the prayer will determine if they come genuinely or not."

  You hear that?  It's not their fault if you're still sick and on death's door.  It's all God's work, so if you don't go in believing in his all-powerful healing, then it's actually your fault you're not cured.  Way to pass the buck, guys.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need something sweet to wash the bitter taste of rage and horror from my mouth.

Awww, just kiss and make up already.

Advertising is designed to get certain emotions going to sell their products or ideology.  Quite a few adverts cause controversy.  United Colors of Benetton have released one such ad campaign which has sent people up in arms.

Benetton's Unhate campaign is trying to spread the message of tolerance and "unhate".  Quoted from their website...

What does UNHATE mean? UN-hate. Stop hating, if you were hating. Unhate is a message that invites us to consider that hate and love are not as far away from each other as we think. Actually, the two opposing sentiments are often in a delicate and unstable balance. Our campaign promotes a shift in the balance: don’t hate, Unhate

I think this is a WONDERFUL message to spread.  It's not everyday that a big firm would release a specific campaign urging people the world over to stop hating each other.  Unfortunately, this message is a little lost on some people.  First in line to argue this "controversial advertising" is the Vatican, on behalf of Pope Benedict.

Don't they make a lovely couple?

Locking lips with the Pope in that image is Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, a prominant imam and scholar of Sunni Islam from Cairo.  Other images in the campaign has Barack Obama kissing the leaders from China and Venezuela, Angela Merkel kissing Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of Palestine kissing the Prime Minister of Israel, and another personal favourite of mine, Kim Jong-il kissing the president of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak.

Unfortunately, the Pope's poster hasn't been up for more than an hour before they were forced to pull it from their website due to complaints from Vatican City. 

"This shows a grave lack of respect for the Pope, an offence to the feelings of believers, a clear demonstration of how publicity can violate the basic rules of respect for people," said Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's spokesman.

The posters were unveiled in a "series of guerilla actions" according to the company, with the posters of Benedict/Ahemd, Merkel/Sarkozy and Obama/Hu Jintao being revealed in Rome, Paris and Milan respectively.  As of yet, the Pope is the only one considering taking legal action against the company for his particular poster, although I would be very interested in hearing the reactions of the other posters from the other featured leaders.  Alessandro Benetton, the deputy head of the company, knew what he was doing in this provocative campaign but wanted to share the ideal notion of love through these posters.  Good on him, I say; I love this campaign.

"The central theme is the kiss, the most universal symbol of love, between world political and religious leaders," Alessandro Benetton said in a statement.

 I suggest heading over to their website and check out the other posters.  It's like looking at movie posters for an upcoming rom-com next summer.  

(News source: Daily Telegraph)

Poppies and Poundland.

So it's getting to that time of year when a particular paper flower is being adorned on almost every lapel in the British Isles.  Everyone from politicians and news readers to the proprietor of your local corner shop is likely to be sporting one like the annual fashion accessory it's become.  I will be wearing one as well - have done for years and its meaning to me hasn't changed; not just as a symbol of rememberence for the wars our nation has fought in the past but also as a symbol of solidarity for our troops today. 

As a whole, society agrees to this interpretation.  Sometimes though, a little too fanatically - an employee in Poundland in Lisburn was asked to remove their poppy because the store's dress policy doesn't allow for it.  Like any grown-up in a workplace, she walked out and the media was alerted.  As expected, Poundland didn't intend for any offence.

"On 28 October a situation in Northern Ireland was brought to the company's attention where a store colleague was politely asked to remove a poppy by our store manager in order to comply with company policy."

"The store colleague decided to walk out and stated that she would return on Monday next wearing her poppy."

Most work places allow the wearing of a poppy, but if somewhere doesn't approve of "accessorising" the uniform, as it were, then as an employee you are contractually obliged to comply.  If you don't agree with it, then bring it up in a mature manner, perhaps through a union or with a few of your colleagues who agree with you.  Walking out and proclaiming you haven't learnt anything isn't going to win you much favour in the workplace and will most likely label you as a troublemaker.  If anything else, just don't wear the poppy at work - there's nothing stopping you from pinning one on your coat after you leave.

I read another blogger's take on this (The Guyliner on Huffington Post UK) and he makes a good point. For some reason, people look down on you when you don't wear a poppy, or when you walk past the collection tins without putting something in.  When I was more naive, I used to think the same way about people who didn't wear poppies for Rememberence Day, and every year I would buy a poppy in part to show my support and in part because I didn't want people to think I DIDN'T support the soldiers.

Until recently, I had a fabric rose pinned to my coat for the local hospice when they were collecting outside my local supermarket.  I say until recently, because like anything pin to my coat, I eventually lose it from general moving around.  I lamented the loss slightly (it was a nice rose) but you know what?  Only I'd notice the missing flower.  And it didn't mean I lost my support for the organisation either.  The same applies here.  Just because there isn't a poppy on your lapel doesn't mean you don't support the troops or the charity - really, I think you can do no worse than the extremists last year who burned poppies as a deliberate act of incitement and display of non-support.

Breast Cancer Awareness has a pink ribbon, the Marie Curie Foundation has a yellow daffodil.  Heck, Help the Heroes has a little medal.  And yet, no one will look at you strangely if you don't wear any of these.  Just because this time of year, it becomes almost high fashion for this red poppy to be worn everywhere (and yes, high enough fashion that there are designer poppies for sale as well).  I think this story is a little blown out of proportion - a bit like when nurses and air stewardesses are asked to remove their crucifixes at work, though the reasoning behind this example is only slightly different. 

All in all, I guess what I was trying to say is that there's no need to blow up because your employer told you not to wear a flower to work - I can't wear my favourite ring to work and I don't whinge about it.  There's more important things to worry about and if you're worried about being able to wear a poppy to work, maybe you should be worrying more about why you're wearing that poppy in the first place.  In fact, maybe you should be thinking more about the troops who are represented by that flower than the flower itself.

It's a busy weekend.

Anyone else surprised we made it to the 22nd of October?  No?  Good, let's move on...

Another chapter in political history has been made with the death of a tyrant.  Colonel Muannmar "Mad Dog" Gadaffi, as we all know by now, had been killed two days ago.  This is bittersweet news - the people have a chance at a true democracy after over forty years under his harsh reign.  However, I got the same disappointed dread I felt when Osama Bin Laden was killed earlier this year.  For all the crimes he is guilty of, Gadaffi should have been made to stand trial and made accountable for everything he has done, in a court of justice.  Instead, he was executed, although reports have argued against it, saying he had been mortally wounded before being shot in the head.  If that was the case, if they were so eager for him to die, why not let him bleed to death instead of helping along?  And not only that, but allowing his body to be photographed by everyone on their mobile phones whilst it lays in refrigeration, awaiting transportation. 

It may have been a war, but I don't understand why a little decorum from the rebels couldn't have been practiced.  But then again, this is my shallow opinion of the matter.  The next step would be for Libya to pick itself up again and show the world what it can do with its own people speaking up for themselves. 

Sharia Law isn't special or unique, no matter how you dress it.

Well, it's been a while since my last post.  I was going to post up another Curious Reading since I've found where I hid my booklets by Dr Naik, but something else has set my blood pressure going (which, given its poor state anyway, is probably a good thing in the long run). 

BRUNEI Darussalam will soon see the creation of a unique hybrid legal system where Islamic laws are integrated into existing civil legislation, making them Syariah-compliant.

In a country that already runs on traditional religious grounds, this only convinces me that rather than sell itself as a modern, fair nation, it's taking five steps back into the Dark Ages.  A senior council member commented that instead of having a seperate law for Muslims and non-Muslims, the two systems will be integrated into one Penal Code, to comply with Sharia law for offences punishable under the Quran.  According to the text, there are six areas of punishable crimes - Theft and Robbery (for some reason, they are separate sections), Illicit Sexual Relations, Unproven Accusations of Illicit Sexual Relations, Drinking Intoxicants and Apostasy. 

From what I am able to recall, these rules aren't anything new for the country.  Corporal punishment is in effect in Brunei and as a child, I remember seeing PSAs on television regarding the punishments a person faces for performing illegal acts (mostly to do with drug trafficking).  I do remember that unrelated, unmarried men and women weren't allowed to be alone together in public or private and there have been reports of couples being arrested for such "crimes" (and being cousins doesn't exempt you from this, by the way).  Drinking was always forbidden for Muslims and given the society out there, I don't blame anyone raised in an Islamic household for not coming out if they stopped believing in Allah. 

There have been complaints to this new system of laws, over the "draconian punishments" prescribed under Hudud (restrictions and punishments for serious crimes), such as amputation of hands for theft and flogging for adultery.  In defence, Zuraini Haji Sharbawi, a senior counsel, points out that the burden of proof under Hudud is "very, very difficult".  An example -

For someone to be punished for sex with a minor, there must be at least four witnesses to fulfil the burden of proof.

Who does this protect, really?  The minor or the offender?  This can only be an advantage to the predator in this situation; where is the victim going to find four witnesses to their abuse?   When sex outside of marriage has such a taboo in their society, who is even going to believe them when they try to report their abuse?  In fact, even if they are brave enough to report their sexual abuse, if they are unable to prove that an adult has had sex with them through witnesses, the victim themselves will be punished for unproven accusations of illicit sexual relations.  Sure, some can claim that this law prevents innocent people from being accused of being sexual predators, but this protects the abusers more than saves the innocent accused.  And even outside of the whole paedophilia net, unmarried couples aren't allowed to "fornicate" either.  And affairs are punishable by flogging.  How is this considered right by any means?  Suppressing people's sexual desires doesn't make them any more or less moral than anyone who sleeps around as long as no one is hurt. 

In addition to this reformation, there will be a review panel to decide if every case should be brought to the Hudud court, or the Takzir court (civil offences with no punishment under Hudud).  Forgive my cynicism here, but if the people employed on the panel are supporters of such a system, who support a moral code based on a scripture as opposed to a society's opinions, I don't hold a lot of hope for anyone who is unlucky enough to be caught drinking, not believing in Allah or for having sex out of marriage and wedlock. 

This system has been cited as unique and special to Brunei, but I fail to see how this is anything more than a redressing of Sharia Law.  At the end of the day, they are still using religion to punish people and I don't see how this will result in a fair and just judicial system.

Surreal Late Night Conversations with Dad

I adore my Dad, no question about it.  He's always been the stable, reasonable, rational force in my upbringing, even when he wasn't there half the time.  It's thanks to him I had the foundations to be able to think skeptically as a child, in an environment where hard questions were dismissed or silenced.

So sometimes, when it's late at night, there's nothing but pessimism on the news and he's downed a few, I get a bit shocked by what he admits.  Like his belief that the world will end at 2012.  That the police should all be given guns and orders to open fire.  That we should arm ourselves ready for society's collapse.  That he wishes he had sturdier legs to run on when the apocalypse happens. 

There's something surreal in trying to associate those admissions with the man who taught me to always keep an open yet skeptical mind. 

Morals? There's an app for that!

Or at least, a psychological test. 

In browsing through my reading lists, I came across a website called Yourmorals.org, where they have studies and surveys to test your moral thinking and ranking them according to how liberal or conservative you are.  I took the first survey on the list, "Moral Foundation Questionnaire", which was developed by Jesse Graham and Jonathan Haidt from the University of Virginia.  Their questionnaire relies on five pillars of moral foundation, based on Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect and Purity/Sanctity. 

It doesn't come as too big a surprise that each foundation is ranked differently according to either group, I suppose accounting for those who are more in the middle of the road with their affiliation.  In sense of accuracy and proper surveying, I would have prefered there be more conservatives taking this survey as liberals are very highly represented. 

Anyway, I'll post up my results for comparison and analysis.  The green bars are my results, blue for average liberal result and red for general conservative result.  The scales are based on the 0-5 system, with 0 being a complete rejection of that foundation and 5 being a full endorsement of that foundation and the basis of which you build your morality upon.

Harm/Care (4.3) - I'm not surprised this is my highest score, but what I am surprised with is just how highly it ranked.  I always thought myself empathic towards others and against harming someone intentionally, but I'm not exactly the most gentle person to have existed either.

Fairness (3.7) - Andrew Hall mentioned that this was the "Superhero Virtue"; so I suppose my sense of justice is nicely placed for a small time hero, like a minor mutant in the X-Men Academy.


Loyalty (2.5) - About average, so no real comment here. 

Authority (3.0) - Leaning more towards the conservative thinking here, but again, I'm not surprised.  I had been raised in a very authoritarian home and I do have a certain respect for people in positions of authority (police, military personnel, leaders, parents, teachers, employers etc), but that does mean my expectations of their conduct is high as well. 

Purity (2.5) - Again, slightly surprised with this one, though I suppose my lingering naivety has influenced a lot of this.  There's very few things I would consider "icky" nowadays, but I suppose hat does beg the question of just how "icky" are the things I was considering when filling out the survey ;-)

Man, I love doing things like these.  It fascinates me to actually see in some rudimentary form how I think.

Kudos to Andrew Hall (Laughing in Purgatory) for the link.