Looking around and trying to understand

I’ve been feeling depressed lately and I thought about having to notice the good things in life.

So, I made a resolution to sometimes mention highlights of my life as they happen.

Yesterday, the highlight was speaking to a Christian giant named Anne. Now, Anne is a widow with 3 sons: One at a private university, one in high school and one in primary school. They do very well. I know her youngest son, who is bright and well-behaved. Anne also runs a preschool and after-school-centre in her neighbourhood, and a Sunday school.

There is something I forgot to mention here, before you get a wrong impression: Anne’s regular income is hardly enough to pay university tuition for her eldest, much less tuition, room and board for him, a place to live for herself and the other two sons, food, etc. She lives in a place - Reahola- that used to be a mine hostel, but is now divided into 405 family units.

Her preschool is not a source of income. The children in her preschool mostly have high school mums who cannot pay her at all. She runs the preschool, the after-school centre, and the Sunday school as a labour of love. She trusts God for funds for her son’s university fee. This far, it came in every month. She was praying to God for money for a fence around her preschool/ after-school study centre. Yesterday, some American Christians phoned and said they will build not only a fence, but a whole playground! The Americans are coming in March.

When I hear about the Checkers “Woman of the year” competition again, I’ll nominate this remarkable woman….

Second biggest highlight:

Anne contacted us some time to give a Good News Club (a weekly Christian meeting for kids) in Reahola. We were there to teach it, and some little kids came to hug us. One little black girl told me: “Teacher, you’re beautiful!” It’s great to hear. As a single woman, people don’t often call me “beautiful.” But I think they are beautiful: All those little black kids who welcome us into their hearts and neighborhood to teach the club. And I wonder if they realize how priviledged they are to have the “beautiful” - not outside, but inside- Anne among them…..

Good

1. At least one ridiculously contradictory concept have now been removed from law books:

There used to be a law stating that having consensual homosexual intercourse with someone under 19 is a crime. Then, same-sex marriages became legal. Last year’s Child Act then specified that 18-year-olds can consent to be wed. It would thus have been legal for a man to marry an 18-year-old boy, but intercourse would have been illegal for the couple. (??!!) This not an opinion on same-sex marriage; or age of consent. This is about legal contradictions.

2. Whereas the previous point is trivial, this one is not: It is only fair that the definition of rape have been changed to include other forms of penetration. The definition also changed to the point where a crime against a boy (or man) can be seen as rape too. That was one of the main purposes of the new law, and they seemingly got that one right.

Bad

3. In a previous article, I contrasted laws on rape with provisions in last year’s Child Act. I observed that even consensual intercourse with a 12-year old is rape, yet contraceptives can be given to 12-year olds; with no explicit demand to the contraceptive-giver to make sure what the situation of the child is. They now changed that. By section 15, consensual intercourse with 12-year olds is not rape any more. This way, the contraceptive-giving heath worker is not being indifferent to a most-certainly-raped child any more. She/he is indifferent to a child who is perhaps being raped. [Sarcastic mode on] Ah……, progress! [Sarcastic mode off/]

4. According to sections 15 and 16, teens (under 16) who, with mutual consent, engage in open-mouthed kissing (or anything more explicit), would be guilty of a crime. We know, nobody is going to actually prosecute them for it. But ridiculous laws cause disrespect for authority. In fact, the “broken windows” theory say that you can significantly reduce serious crime simply by prosecuting each and every crime, even the small ones. By making laws that are next-to-impossible to prosecute, you thus encourage crime.

5. According to section 18, someone who do or say things to a 17-year old with the idea to “diminish or reduce any resistance … to perform a sexual act” is “guilty of the offence of sexual grooming of a child.” That seems much too broad.

Let’s take an example: Joe (19) meets Anne (17). They talk. The next time they meet, they kiss. Later things go further. One thing lead to another, and they have consensual intercourse. You could argue that Anne would not have consented the first day they met. Thus talking to her, kissing her, complimenting her, etc. “diminished Anne’s resistance.” By this definition, Joe is guilty of the offence of “sexual grooming of a child.”

Joe’s pal hear of Joe’s crime, and does things differently: Instead of trying to have a relationship, he goes to a girl and ask her for sex. Oops. By Section 18(2)(b)) , someone who “describes the commission of any act” to a 17-year old with the idea to “diminish or reduce any resistance … to perform a sexual act” is guilty of the same crime as Joe.

6. Joe committed another crime in his relationship: He let Anne see him naked when they did the deed! According to section 22, you may not show your naked body to a consensual 17-year old. So: It is legal to have consensual sex with 16- or 17-year olds, but only in the dark!

Ugly

7. Nowhere in this new law do I find that non-consensual sexual acts (those described with the terms “rape” and “sexual assault”) with a child is regarded in a more serious light than the same acts with an adult. Nothing I can see tells me the prescribed penalty will be any different.

It would seem that nothing in this new law differentiate between for instance

(a) the unwanted fondling of a 28-year-old woman and

(b) similar fondling of a 8-year-old girl.

At first, I even thought that the law do not say anything about under 12’s giving consent to acts they do not understand, but at least that is not true. Although chapter 3 (The “Sexual Offences against Children” chapter) do not mention it, the description under “this act” in chapter 1: “Definitions and objects” mention that children below 12 are not capable of giving consent.

I sincerely hope that this is a case of previous laws already stating this, and those laws still staying the same. However, this sounds unlikely to me: The ages for what used to be called “Statutory rape” changed. (It used to be 13 -15, now it is 12 - 15.) Thus, the age limit on whatever other laws (concerning sexual deeds with younger children) that still exist, cannot stay the same either. If the ages in them do not appear amended in this act, they are probably not part of this country’s law any more.

Conclusion

If that last point is correct, this law is, on balance, very badly written and overall a negative thing by my standards. Please, law-makers, tell me I am wrong about my point 7. I really, really hope I am wrong!

Even if other laws cover the issue in point 6, this “Sexual offences and Related Matters Amendment Act” is not off the hook. The “broken windows principle” mean ridiculous rules like “teen, you may not kiss” or “adult, you may have intercourse with an older teen, but do not seduce him/her and don’t let him/ her see you naked” may be indirectly bad for law and order.

 

 

Here Peter T. Chattaway, film critic, interview Philip Pullman on “His Dark materials” books and the new “The Golden Compass“ movie, based on it. The interview statements seems to be a bit more toned down than Pullman’s earlier admission: “My books are about killing God” - Philip Pullman

I know that reviewers find the ‘Golden Compass’ movie not even entertaining. And readers say the first book of the ‘His Dark Materials’ trilogy is well-written, the second less well-written, and the third book (the most anti-religious of the three, in which “God” is killed) is very disconnected, failing to satisfactorily conclude the lofty themes promised in the first book.. Jeffrey Overstreet suggest some questions that you can ask in a discussion with children who read the book. (They are in the “Okay, so we shouldn’t start boycotts and complain.But what should Christians do?” section under “equip yourself and your kids ….. section of this link.)

 

 

Some of Pullman’s anti-religious remarks in the interview have led me to comment on the interview’s site.

 

Pullman: “If there is an exclusively religious sin (not exclusively Christian, but certainly clearly visible among some Christians) it is the claim that all virtue belongs to their sect, all vice to others.”

 

Me: If that is true, why does the “His Dark Materials” series put all virtue in the actions of unbelieving characters, and almost all vice in the believing characters? It would seem that this sin is not so exclusive to religious people, but appears in Pullman’s mind as well.

 

Pullman: “It [the claim that all virtue belongs to their sect, all vice to others] is so clearly wrong, so clearly stupid, so clearly counter-productive, that it leads the unbiased observer to assume that you’re not allowed in the religious club unless you leave your intelligence at the door. “

 

Me: Yeah, that’s the same thing that puts me off about Dawkins, Hitchens and the like – this “so clearly wrong, so clearly stupid, so clearly counter-productive,” view that all belief in God, and believers in God, are evil and/or stupid, and atheism the clever, moral thing. It “leads the unbiased observer to assume that you’re not allowed in the anti-religious club unless you leave your intelligence at the door. “

 

 

Why is it that some people are very critical of flaws they themselves share, but they only notice those flaws in others? There is no reason to think that prejudice is exclusive to believers- not if you have read anything by today’s most prominent atheistic writers, that is.

 

 

I have spoken to some people on the ‘net that left me totally exasperated. (And I don’t want to link to their forums either.) They make statements about their world view. (For example the statement “No New Testament writer knew Jesus” to defend a non-Christian world view.)

 

I then research and cross-reference to sources to show them their statement is untrue. (In case of the example, by any standard used for accepting historical writing, you have to accept that several New Testament books was written by eyewitnesses.)

 

When I do that, they claim things like: “Who is to say that what is true for you is true for me?” Now, that kind of argument is perfect for things like “Are Crocs ugly or not?” If I think Crocs are ugly shoes, and you do not, your opinion is as worthy as mine. But if one of us think that Leonardo da Vinci never existed, and one of us insist he did, one of us is right and the other wrong. If one of us thinks Jesus rose from the death and one of us do not, we are not both equally right. (Lionel Luckhoo- possibly the greatest lawyer ever - he got “innocent convictions in 245 murder cases in a row – said that the evidence for Jesus’s resurrection is overwhelming and leave no room for doubt.)

 

One of the things that inspired “Not everything is true in Mella-Milloo” was the view that truth is not relative. Everybody is not equally right. (If you want the non-relativity of truth discussed more deeply, this page explains how 15 things need to be true before anyone would utter the statement “There is no truth.”)

 

The other inspiration was Aaron from “The Wardrobe Door” asserting that we need to express our world views more creatively.

More creatively? That made me think of Dr. Seuss’s great story “The Lorax.” (“The Lorax”, and Dalene Matthee’s “Kringe in ‘n Bos”,which translate as “Circles in a Forest” are the best works I ever read on the tragedy of destroying the environment.)

It also made me think of all the other funny, rhyming stories I read as a little kid: Lots by Dr. Seuss. One Afrikaans book named “Die Appeltwis” about a crazy argument between two kings: An apple tree standing on the edge of one kingdom was shedding apples into the other… And one named “To think what I saw on Mulberry street.” (How a plain horse and a wagon on Mulberry Street/ changed into a story that no-one could beat.)

 

So here is my attempt at a kid’s story. I envisioned it with Dr. Seuss-like pictures, but I can’t draw them.

By Retha Faurie 

Here in my town of Mella-Milloo

I go off to school, just like any of you.

But something is strange at the Mella-school.

Some kids say things that just are not cool.

Some kids here think everything is equally true.

They say: “I am right, and so are you.”

 

When I say the sum has the answer three,

they say five is what it turns out to be.

When I say our teacher is wearing green,

they say her purple dress is the ugliest ever seen.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Yesterday Susan came by on her bike.

(She always says funny things that I like.)

She stopped, and said “hi.”

We played, and then we said “Bye.”

 

At school I tell the other kids out to play

that Susan was riding her bike yesterday.

“No,” Mike said, “it wasn’t a bike.

She had a flying saucer, and an alien was following

on a four-winged trike.”

 

“But,” argued I, “a flying saucer she did not drive.

And I saw no alien, nor on a tricycle or doing the jive.”

“Hold your tongue,” say Mike to me now.

“It doesn’t matter if it was a saucer, a bike or a cow.

Just about everything is equally true.

I am right, and so are you.”

 

I said to Mike: “Only some things are true.

God gave me a brain, and a pair of eyes too

so I can see and know what is true.

So I can understand, and know what to do.

Some things are true and some are not.

I saw what she rode. A bike she got.

God gave me a brain to understand.

And to look for truth, is what He command.

Not everything is equally true.

What is true indeed, should be true for you.”

 

“And,” added Joe, “I saw her too.

She was riding an elephant from the Mella-town zoo.”

“But Mella-town don’t have a zoo,”

I said, “and Susan fear big animals too.”

Joe say: “It depends how you feel

I feel she rode one, I believe that it’s true.

If you don’t believe it, I am just as right as you.”

 

I said to Joe: “Only some things are true

God gave me a brain, and a pair of eyes too

so I can see and know what is true.

So I can understand, and know what to do.

Some things are true and some are not.

I saw what she rode. A bike she got.

God gave me a brain to understand.

And to look for truth, is what He command.

Not everything is equally true.

What is true indeed, should be true for you.”

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Last week Martin was away from class.

This week he told us where he was.

He and his mother flew over the sea

to visit the country of Medda-Callee.

Martin showed his photos to us

of him and his mum, touring on a big red bus.

 

Mike say Martin was in a hospital ward

with a toe that was swollen large and hard.

A tarantula bit him, and his toe swelled large as a TV screen.

Martin’s toe was the largest that Mike ever seen.

 

“No,’ say I, “his toe is okay.

Nothing is wrong with that toe today.”

Shhht, say Mike: “Just about everything is equally true.

I am right, and so are you.”

 

I say to Mike: “Only some things are true

God gave me a brain, and a pair of eyes too

so I can see and know what is true.

So I can understand, and know what to do.

His toe is all right, no tarantula was there.

He went overseas and has the photos to share.

God gave me a brain to understand.

And to look for truth, is what He command.

Not everything is equally true.

What is true indeed, should be true for you.”

 

Then Joe chipped in with another tale:

“Martin had a ship that set for sail.

He found an island - what a pleasure

‘cause on the island he found a chest full of treasure.

Pirates came, and then he guessed

that fighting them off would be the best.”

 

“But,” say I, “how can one little boy

fight off pirates, with his sword a plastic toy?”

Joe say: “It depends how you feel.

I feel he did it, I believe that it’s true.

If you don’t believe it, I am just as right as you.”

 

I say to Joe: “Only some things are true

God gave me a brain, and a pair of eyes too

so I can see and know what is true.

So I can understand, and know what to do.

I saw the photos and the tickets for the plane.

If you think he fought pirates, why, that is insane!

God gave me a brain to understand.

And to look for truth, is what He command.

Not everything is equally true.

What is true indeed, should be true for you.”

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

My mother say that Jesus died.

Came alive again, he never lied.

He said he would die and then rise again.

He did that 2000 years ago, that’s when.

 

Now some people say “It depends how you feel.

If you feel he did, then believe that it’s true.

I don’t believe it, and I am just as right as you.”

 

But either Jesus died and then he rose.

Or else it’s a story, no truer than Joe’s.

It just cannot both be equally true.

It cannot be true just for me or for you.

 

I can say to them: “Only some things are true.

God gave us brains, and pairs of eyes too

so we can see and know what is true.

So we can understand, and know what to do.

The people saw him die, then saw him alive again.

They wrote what they saw, and kept saying it then.

God gave me a brain to understand.

And to look for truth, is what He command.

Not everything is equally true.

What is true indeed, should be true for you.”

This is “16 days of activism for no violence againt woman and children” , right?Right.

We want this nation’s (and all other nation’s) children to be safer, right?

Right.

Sadly, there is a part of SA’s new child act which works against child safety. Let us not start with my opinion, but with an article in a recent Huisgenoot and You:

The article starts with a scene of a 13-year-old girl, who is molested daily by her mother’s boyfriend. At least, the girl thinks, she now got birth control. At least she can’t get pregnant. Then the article goes on to describe that as one of the reasons why new laws hand out birth control even to 12-year-olds (and why even 11-year olds can get an abortion without parental consent).

The story was probably supposed to make me feel that the health worker who gave the birth control pills did a good thing. Instead, it made me angry: How dare anyone hand out birth control pills to a 13-year-old without even trying to finding out if she is molested? That is criminal negligence! You may assume that someone who asks for birth control is sexually active. To have sex with a girl younger than 16 is a crime. Studies in America show that 60%-80% of sexually active girls under 16 have an adult (predator) as a partner. (As far as I know, no similar studies have been conducted here, so I am using the American numbers.) A health worker who encounters an under-16 girl asking for birth control thus has good reason to suspect molestation. The law says that anyone who has reason to suspect molestation must report it.

Therefore, if some clinic reports that it prescribed birth control to 6 girls under 16 in a given week, they should also have documentation showing that they reported 6 cases of possible child molestation to social workers that week. And if an abortion clinic reports 3 girls under 16 appearing for abortions in a given week, they should have a paper trail showing that they reported 3 cases of possible child molestation to authorities that week. Does anybody really think that the clinics do that? (Are there any auditors out there who dislike the state provision of birth control and abortions to kids? Following this paper trail from S.A. clinics may be something you can do about it. With such evidence, clinics might be legally prosecuted for not complying.) Mark Crutcher, the chief of Life Dynamics, found out that in America, the abortion industry “services” provided to underage girls outnumber the “reports” of suspicion of assault on a child by 11-1 – at best. And even then, it was usually not reported by the abortion clinics, but by paediatricians.

Which brings me to the point at the beginning of this article: People who dish out birth control to underage girls, or perform abortions on them, and do not report it to the authorities, help child molesters hide their crime and continue the abuse. Helping child molesters is bad for children. I want to protect children from violence against them.

—-

There is something else that greatly protects woman and children, which hardly ever gets a mention: The nuclear family! Children who live with both biological parents are, on average, a lot safer than children who have a mother that often has a new sexual partner. The mothers themselves are also safer. Therefore, any promotion of pro-family values is the promotion of safety for woman and children. (You may say: “But you should not judge cohabiting women!” I am not judging them. But I don’t judge people who judge cohabiting mothers- mothers who make life more dangerous for their children- either.)

 

I decorated this My Little Pony cake for my godchild’s birthday recently. Am rather proud of it, since I did it with no instructions on how to make a pony cake. I just had a rectangular cake, and cut and decorated it according to an picture I had of a My Little Pony.

Militant atheists try, these days, to convince people that religion is bad for children. (Obviously, they quote no studies. They back it up by emotionalism, sophisticated word choices, and whatever negative anecdotes they can find.)So I hope to compile a real list of studies that say something on the topic.Studies that compare, statistically, children who believe the christian claims and those who do not, and who measures the results to things generally regarded as good, even by unbelievers.

Like this example :

Positive Life Outcomes
Moreover, that religious participation seems to be having a positive effect on youth. The researchers noted, “In general, for whatever reasons and whatever the causal directions, more highly religiously active teenagers are doing significantly better in life on a variety of important outcomes than are less religiously active teens.”…………Data suggested that, compared to their less religiously active peers, more religiously active kids were less likely to engage in illegal substance abuse; use the Internet to view pornography; get lower school grades ; get suspended or expelled from school; be described by parents as fairly or very rebellious; lie to parents; or to have engaged in sex before marriage. Less religious involvement also correlated to a poorer self-image, greater sadness and feelings of depression.Conversely, Smith and Denton said, the more religiously devoted teenagers were, the less likely they were to believe in relativistic morality, and the more likely they were to say they cared about the needs of the poor and the elderly, as well as “about equality between different racial groups.”

While admitting that other factors may enter into this equation — such as personality types — the researchers stated: “Something about religion itself causes the good outcomes for youth. By general implication, teens who increase their religious involvement should, net of other factors, reduce their chances of experiencing negative and harmful outcomes,” and vice versa.

 

And in a report called Third Millenium teens, brought out by the Barna Research group in 1999, the following statistics was found:

Research shows that when young people lack a basic biblical belief system, it negatively affects their attitudes.

As a result they are:

• 225% more likely to be angry with life
• 216% more likely to be resentful
• 210% more likely to lack purpose in life
• 200% more likely to be disappointed in life.

The research also shows that our young people’s failure to adopt a foundational Christian belief system negatively impacts their behavior:

• 48% more likely to cheat on an exam200% more likely to steal
• 200% more likely to physically hurt someone
• 300% more likely to use illegal drugs
• 600% more likely to attempt suicide.

Quoted in Josh McDowell’s book, “The Last Christian Generation.”Just a word of caution: “Having a Biblical belief system” goes a lot deeper than merely professing Christianity. Thus, the mere fact that a child calls himself a Christian do not mean he is that much better off in statistical terms.I’d appreciate some help in this endeavour, since I do not even know where to look for this kind of statistics. Perhaps someone who read this knows:

Do anyone knows of psychologists who witness that religion is good for children? And what good mean to them in that regard. (I know I once read in a magazine that a psychologist recommends that even atheist or agnostic parents tell their little kids -tots and preschoolers and early grades- there is a God who cares for them and look after them, since it has an enormous benefit in making them feel safe and loved. I cannot remember who it was or where I read it.)

Studies that show religion is good for humans (make them happier, make them live longer, make them healthier) apparently also exist and I’d like to know where.

So, I’d appreciate it if any of you can give me internet links to any study that shows ways in which religion has a positive effect on humans. If it shows a positive effect on children, specifically, even better. But remember: For the sake of the kind of argument I am trying to make, being more religious or living closer to God is not, in itself, a positive effect.

The point of this:

If you are a parent, please work hard on teaching your child Christian values. Read up on how to best teach it to a generation who might even misunderstand basic words like “truth”, “judgement”, “God’s love” etc., due to their cultural conditioning. If you are a Sunday school teacher or youth worker: Please be encouraged: Do even more to teach real Christian values- not water-down-for-kids versions of Christian values.

Whoever you are, if you meet or read the sort of bigoted campaigner who try to tell you that teaching kids about God “corrupts their innocent minds,” or whatever, tell everyone how ridiculous the campaigners are. They are trying to “protect” children from a world view that apparently gives purpose, lessens anger and dissappointment with life, improve their school marks, protects them from drugs and keep them away from suicide.

I sent this letter to several South African publications some months ago, for publishing on their letter page. Some published it, some did not. Here it is unchanged: New Children’s Act worrying  Government is implementing a new Child act. One of the provisions in said law is that children, from the age of 12 can get contraceptives without their parent’s knowledge. It is already true that children from 11 can get abortions without parental consent. According to our government, the new laws are “…. for promoting and monitoring the sound physical, psychological, intellectual, emotional and social development of children;” and to “promote the preservation and strengthening of families.” I don’t see it like that. In the first place, this country has a law that states that sex with 12-year old girl or younger is rape - whether she gives permission or not. Sex with a girl between 13 and 15 years, you have her permission, is statutory rape. It is also illegal for a woman to have sex with a boy in that age group. (As far as I know, the age limit for homosexual intercourse is even higher.) With that, the principle is clearly that children of 12 and 13 cannot take emotional responsibility for their own sexual choices. The regulation that anyone who has reason to suspect an underage child is being molested has to report it, also contradicts this new law. These law makers claim to know that a sexually active child may be a child in need of care. (I’d say all sexually active 12 and 13 year olds need better care.) Yet, this law makes the mere giving out of contraceptives standard practice and the provision of care an afterthought. In fact, it makes it hard for parents to even know their kids need better care! In the second place we have to remember that many teens get sexually active because they want to be loved. To get contraceptives and even abortions without your parents’ knowledge enlarges the gap between parent and child even further. A child who feel neglected and not understood would search for love somewhere else. And what kind of uhm…, love, do many of these youths find? You know the answer. This kind of government policy will only enlarge the problem of teenage promiscuity. Tell me: What can we do to get government to change this provision?   Retha Faurie