Post 34--
The basic message of the Bible is about love, forgiveness and reconciliation. It is possible that you do not detect much of that spirit in the past few posts. I seem rather harsh and unforgiving. Though the above concerns are indeed dominant in the Bible, there are also subconcerns that betray a different spirit. These subconcerns are directed at people who represent the opposite of the dominant spirit and work against it; against oppressors of the people.
John the Baptist
When Jewish religious leaders came to John the Baptist, he berated them with all the harshness he could muster. Of course, neither he nor Jesus were invested with official power and thus had to restrict themselves to the power they had, which was one of warning and castigating. “You brood of vipers,” John yelled at them and threatened that “the ax is already at the root of the trees…” (Matthew 3:7, 10; Luke 3:7-9).
Jesus
Jesus blasted those leaders time and again for putting an impossible load on the shoulders of the people that they themselves were “not willing to lift a finger to move them.” Jesus’ preferred name for them was “hypocrites”—“you shut the kingdom of heaven in man’s faces. You yourselves do not enter…” (Matthew 23:4, 13-14; Luke 11:46). Like Canadian gangsters, Jesus accused these leaders of traveling “over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” Upon them “will come all the righteous blood” they have caused to flow (Matthew 23:15, 35). He cursed those who did not take pity on the poor and helpless and assigned them to “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41, 46). He accused religious leaders of devouring “widows’ houses” and warned that “such men will be punished most severely” (Mark 14:40; Luke 20:47). He pronounced “Woe” on the well-fed (Luke 6:24-25), and that allegedly includes gangsters. His “Woes” are scary and not to be ignored. Jesus did not leave it with mere words. One time he violently overturned the tables of merchants in the temple and drove them out, probably with a whip (Mark 11:15-17). And all of that from a Jesus who describes Himself as “gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29)—“meek,” according to the old King James.
Compared to Jesus
Yes, meek under most circumstances, gentle and humble. Love and compassion personified. But when it came to the high and mighty who oppressed the people, he reserved nothing but scorn and threats of the worst future imaginable. Hell, even. Rejection by and separation from God Himself. Compared to that, you must admit that I am pretty mild comparatively when it comes to gangsters. I do not threaten them with hell. I do not demand capital punishment, but if they insist on divvying that out amongst themselves, I suggest we give them the space for it. Instead of imprisonment, I prefer having them tethered in homes. Out of the box? Yes. Cruel? Compared to Jesus, I am a wimp with my proposals!
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Treatment of Gangsters—Preposterous Proposals (3)
Post 32:—-
I am really going to take you out of the box with this post. I am going to offer a proposal that I have never heard of or read about before. I have tested it on a crime journalist who rejected it outright as ridiculous. But what we’re doing now with gangsters is, according to me, even more ridiculous, at least if you go by “success.” The population of BC, especially in the south, is being traumatized by constant shoot outs in public places with innocent bystanders or passers by getting killed. Many people feel that the “justice” system seems more concerned with the human rights of monster gangsters and with proper legal procedures than with the safety of ordinary citizens. And after one gangster has killed another gangster, all the manpower and other resources of police forces are marshalled to investigate the killing to the finest detail, while other policing needs receive insufficient attention. They even go out of their way to protect gangsters against gangsters!
So, my proposal: Deny gangsters human rights and police protection. Remember from the last post, that in the scheme I am currently discussing, gangs themselves are now seen as illegal and it is illegal to belong to them. When a gangster—i.e., a member of a known gang-- is killed, let the gang world take care of the dog’s corpse and dispose of it. No investigation on the part of the police. Who cares? That’s one down. Their work has just become a little easier. If gangsters know that no one is concerned about such murders and no one will investigate, perhaps they will kill each other more without restraint and so reduce the further chaos they cause in the civilized community. In the meantime, the police can turn their attention to more worthwhile issues.
There, I’ve said it with all my gruffness without any euphemisms. I just called a spade a spade. This is the proposal that crime journalist rejected almost indignantly. You could think of it as gang suicide or self-cleansing. Goodbye to bad rubbish. And if you don’t like the animalistic terms I use for these dogs, well, I’m in the good company of Kim Bolan, a crime journalist and of Andrew Wooding of the Abbotsford Police whom she quotes approvingly as saying, “It is animalistic.” Indeed. So why not give it a more concrete name with apologies to all respectable dogs?
Recently more hoodlums have been arrested. Bolan reports that Wooding expects that increasing arrests will lead to “less public gunplay.” “It will drive things underground, unfortunately. But I think that is safer for the public.” With all respect for Wooding’s experience, I cannot follow his logic here. Whether the hoodlums shoot each other publicly or underground, what’s the difference? When they do, just leave them lying in their own blood for the dogs to lick up. I don’t believe for one moment that more arrests will instill greater caution in the hearts of gangsters. I know of no research that proves arrests stop criminals in their tracks. If that were so, the US should have fewer criminals than any other nation. Alas….
My rather crude sense of justice has some backing in the Old Testament of the Bible. The prophet Elijah was sent to chastise King Ahab of Israel who had arranged to kill a man called Naboth in order to seize his property. The prophet said, “In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!” His wife, who had instigated it all, was to suffer the same fate along with their entire family (I Kings 21:19, )! Now even for me that’s a bit over the top!
I’m not done. Stay with me.
Source: The source for the journalistic materials is Kim Bolan, “Murder Charges….” Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, p. A8.
I am really going to take you out of the box with this post. I am going to offer a proposal that I have never heard of or read about before. I have tested it on a crime journalist who rejected it outright as ridiculous. But what we’re doing now with gangsters is, according to me, even more ridiculous, at least if you go by “success.” The population of BC, especially in the south, is being traumatized by constant shoot outs in public places with innocent bystanders or passers by getting killed. Many people feel that the “justice” system seems more concerned with the human rights of monster gangsters and with proper legal procedures than with the safety of ordinary citizens. And after one gangster has killed another gangster, all the manpower and other resources of police forces are marshalled to investigate the killing to the finest detail, while other policing needs receive insufficient attention. They even go out of their way to protect gangsters against gangsters!
So, my proposal: Deny gangsters human rights and police protection. Remember from the last post, that in the scheme I am currently discussing, gangs themselves are now seen as illegal and it is illegal to belong to them. When a gangster—i.e., a member of a known gang-- is killed, let the gang world take care of the dog’s corpse and dispose of it. No investigation on the part of the police. Who cares? That’s one down. Their work has just become a little easier. If gangsters know that no one is concerned about such murders and no one will investigate, perhaps they will kill each other more without restraint and so reduce the further chaos they cause in the civilized community. In the meantime, the police can turn their attention to more worthwhile issues.
There, I’ve said it with all my gruffness without any euphemisms. I just called a spade a spade. This is the proposal that crime journalist rejected almost indignantly. You could think of it as gang suicide or self-cleansing. Goodbye to bad rubbish. And if you don’t like the animalistic terms I use for these dogs, well, I’m in the good company of Kim Bolan, a crime journalist and of Andrew Wooding of the Abbotsford Police whom she quotes approvingly as saying, “It is animalistic.” Indeed. So why not give it a more concrete name with apologies to all respectable dogs?
Recently more hoodlums have been arrested. Bolan reports that Wooding expects that increasing arrests will lead to “less public gunplay.” “It will drive things underground, unfortunately. But I think that is safer for the public.” With all respect for Wooding’s experience, I cannot follow his logic here. Whether the hoodlums shoot each other publicly or underground, what’s the difference? When they do, just leave them lying in their own blood for the dogs to lick up. I don’t believe for one moment that more arrests will instill greater caution in the hearts of gangsters. I know of no research that proves arrests stop criminals in their tracks. If that were so, the US should have fewer criminals than any other nation. Alas….
My rather crude sense of justice has some backing in the Old Testament of the Bible. The prophet Elijah was sent to chastise King Ahab of Israel who had arranged to kill a man called Naboth in order to seize his property. The prophet said, “In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!” His wife, who had instigated it all, was to suffer the same fate along with their entire family (I Kings 21:19, )! Now even for me that’s a bit over the top!
I’m not done. Stay with me.
Source: The source for the journalistic materials is Kim Bolan, “Murder Charges….” Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, p. A8.
Monday, September 20, 2010
For the Love ofAnimals (2)--and Control
Post 8
Yes, it is a cause for celebration that we are so much more humane in relationship to the animal world around us. But, based on the Bible, theology and well-established Christian tradition, animals are not our equals. We need to respect them and protect them. We are meant to enjoy them, but we need also to control them. The safety and well-being of people have priority over those of animals.
When in emergencies we are forced to choose between rescuing people or animals, we choose the former. When animals become dangerous to the human community, we must do what we can to accommodate them, but they must give way. When deer and bears attack people in their towns and villages as they do in some BC communities like North Vancouver and Grand Forks, then ways have to be found to move them away or, under extreme circumstances, even kill them. When rabbits on a university campus as in Victoria, threaten to take over the place, government regulations should not prevent authorities from taking the necessary steps to alleviate the problem. When Canada geese poop all over the lawns of Stanley Park so that they can no longer be used for recreational purposes by the tax payers, then there must be freedom to solve the problem, probably by killing them. When large birds endanger airplanes or disrupt power supplies, the community must protect itself against such onslaughts, possibly by killing them.
Biblically, we have priority. An early Bible account has Adam and Eve giving names to animals. You don’t give names if you don’t have the authority to do so--except perhaps place names changed arbitrarily by colonial adventurers—or if you don’t have the required insight into the nature of the individual animal. Our earliest ancestors in the Bible stories are given the assignment, the obligation, to rule over the entire world and all its creatures. The fact that the human race has often messed up this assignment due to the fall does not reduce our authority over animals or our obligation to rule and control them.
We have zoos, where we keep animals out of their natural habitat for human entertainment, but also for education. Is this legitimate? Purely for recreation, probably not. For education, I believe it is, especially if they are kept in humane ways and in environments as natural as possible. How many children have not enjoyed and profited from seeing wild animals, perhaps even petted them? It should lead to awareness, admiration and respect on their part.
For a long time, people have hunted and fished to supply themselves with food and this continues to be so. This is a legitimate use of the creatures placed under our authority. However, when hunting and fishing is reduced to recreation, then it becomes another issue. Recently my grandson and I watched some recreational fishermen on the White Rock BC dock roughly pull the hook out of small fish or even cut them with knives and then throw them back in the water. My 8-year old grandson was rightly horrified and indignant. I know of people who derive pleasure from shooting elephants in Africa, those magnificent beasts! Just imagine: pleasure! The fact that the villagers got to eat their meat does not undo the affront of the pleasure. That is not the authority over and responsibility for our animals that can be Christianly justified.
But hunting and fishing as part of a community’s food chain is legitimate—as is the raising of animals for meat. At least, in my estimation and understanding, though I have considerable sympathy for the vegetarians among us. I may well be ever so slowly moving into that direction, but I am not ready for it—yet! But raising chickens or hogs or any other meat for human consumption must take into consideration their nature, something that has been ignored for too long. Thousands of chickens in crowded batteries is no Christian way to treat them. The Bible says, they all have their own nature and must be treated accordingly. Filling them with chemicals for greater profit is an abuse of human authority and cruel, quite apart from the human disease such practices cause. At the same time, raising rabbits on the ground may be natural to them, but will lead to their disappearance and, quite likely, lead to an out-of-control rabbit plague.
And with this,I leave you to ponder.
Yes, it is a cause for celebration that we are so much more humane in relationship to the animal world around us. But, based on the Bible, theology and well-established Christian tradition, animals are not our equals. We need to respect them and protect them. We are meant to enjoy them, but we need also to control them. The safety and well-being of people have priority over those of animals.
When in emergencies we are forced to choose between rescuing people or animals, we choose the former. When animals become dangerous to the human community, we must do what we can to accommodate them, but they must give way. When deer and bears attack people in their towns and villages as they do in some BC communities like North Vancouver and Grand Forks, then ways have to be found to move them away or, under extreme circumstances, even kill them. When rabbits on a university campus as in Victoria, threaten to take over the place, government regulations should not prevent authorities from taking the necessary steps to alleviate the problem. When Canada geese poop all over the lawns of Stanley Park so that they can no longer be used for recreational purposes by the tax payers, then there must be freedom to solve the problem, probably by killing them. When large birds endanger airplanes or disrupt power supplies, the community must protect itself against such onslaughts, possibly by killing them.
Biblically, we have priority. An early Bible account has Adam and Eve giving names to animals. You don’t give names if you don’t have the authority to do so--except perhaps place names changed arbitrarily by colonial adventurers—or if you don’t have the required insight into the nature of the individual animal. Our earliest ancestors in the Bible stories are given the assignment, the obligation, to rule over the entire world and all its creatures. The fact that the human race has often messed up this assignment due to the fall does not reduce our authority over animals or our obligation to rule and control them.
We have zoos, where we keep animals out of their natural habitat for human entertainment, but also for education. Is this legitimate? Purely for recreation, probably not. For education, I believe it is, especially if they are kept in humane ways and in environments as natural as possible. How many children have not enjoyed and profited from seeing wild animals, perhaps even petted them? It should lead to awareness, admiration and respect on their part.
For a long time, people have hunted and fished to supply themselves with food and this continues to be so. This is a legitimate use of the creatures placed under our authority. However, when hunting and fishing is reduced to recreation, then it becomes another issue. Recently my grandson and I watched some recreational fishermen on the White Rock BC dock roughly pull the hook out of small fish or even cut them with knives and then throw them back in the water. My 8-year old grandson was rightly horrified and indignant. I know of people who derive pleasure from shooting elephants in Africa, those magnificent beasts! Just imagine: pleasure! The fact that the villagers got to eat their meat does not undo the affront of the pleasure. That is not the authority over and responsibility for our animals that can be Christianly justified.
But hunting and fishing as part of a community’s food chain is legitimate—as is the raising of animals for meat. At least, in my estimation and understanding, though I have considerable sympathy for the vegetarians among us. I may well be ever so slowly moving into that direction, but I am not ready for it—yet! But raising chickens or hogs or any other meat for human consumption must take into consideration their nature, something that has been ignored for too long. Thousands of chickens in crowded batteries is no Christian way to treat them. The Bible says, they all have their own nature and must be treated accordingly. Filling them with chemicals for greater profit is an abuse of human authority and cruel, quite apart from the human disease such practices cause. At the same time, raising rabbits on the ground may be natural to them, but will lead to their disappearance and, quite likely, lead to an out-of-control rabbit plague.
And with this,I leave you to ponder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
