[Whodunnit Pt. 2] Let Him Have It…

Back in February I had a long comment discussion with an atheist called Postsimian which started on a post at The Friendly Atheist, but went off topic so I brought it here.

Whilst not intended, this makes an excellent follow-up to that post – Killing In The Name Of…

The gist of the discussion was one of hermeneutics. Postsimian argued that ‘if’ there was a God, he was evil, because of the certain events and commands given by God in the Old Testament, taken literally. My argument was that, as well as the need for proper exegetical context, there is a need for a greater perspective on what is written in the OT, which relies heavily on if we deem the events real or made-up.

The crux of the matter was whether God, assumedly being good, could be capable of evil – i.e. killing seemingly innocent people. Postsimians study of the OT led him to conclude that even if God is good, he is capable of evil, whereas my study of the bible leads me to conclude that certain acts of God which seem wrong on the face of it, are not when understood in context.

It later occured to me that this argument is demonstrated aptly in a film I watched years ago based on the true story of Derek Bentley called Let Him Have It. The premise of the film is of a robbery which goes disasterously wrong. During the attempted arrest, brain-damaged Bentley yells out to his younger accomplice “Let him have it” – referring to the gun, and subsequently his accomplice, Christopher Craig, shoots the policeman. For those not in the know, “Let him have it” used to be a turn of phrase in the UK for giving the go-ahead to attack someone. The question is: Did Bentley order Craig to hand over the gun, or fire it at the copper?

The real-life case, in actual fact, did not hinge upon these words, but it does prove useful for this exercise. For the police, by yelling “let him have it” Bentley was giving the order to shoot, and was therefore intending evil, and rightly deserved the death penalty. For the defence, Bentley was ordering Craig to hand over the gun and surrender.

The fact is, without any supporting evidence apart from the reading of Bentleys words, your view of Bentleys guilt will be based on your own preconceptions and bias. If you were not British and raised in the time of the 50’s you may well think that Bentley ordered Craig to surrender. However, if you were around at the time, you may have thought differently.

By now you know what I’m getting at. This is nearly the same problem when it comes to reading biblical texts literally. No, God is not going around in the OT ordering people to shoot other people, but there are times when he has commanded specific instructions and left it for his people to interpret and then act, or intercede.

More and more, it seems to me that what is not written in the OT scriptures, is more important than what is actually written.

In the end, Postsimian may be right after all about one thing, in some cases it seems like it is a mere subtle nuance. However, I must counterbalance this with the truth that in every instance of the OT where God orders the destruction of human life, as the law required (just like the American justice system), when people either interceded or pleaded for mercy, they were shown mercy.

This is why if you are going to honestly critique the Old Testament, you cannot read it literally. You need to be prepared to study a bit of history and culture at the same time. It is also why I feel I cannot emphasise enough, that God is not looking for people to carry out judgement (under the law), but instead he is looking for people to intercede and carry out mercy and forgiveness (when the law has been broken).

Technorati Tags: bible, old testament, whodunnit, law, mercy, god, killing, murder, forgiveness, atheism, atheists, hermeneutics, good and evil, exegesis, derek bentley, interpretation

[Health & Safety] More Lessons In Killing For The Met

I don’t think I want to be safe anymore. I don’t think I want the police to “protect” me from terrorists, anarchists or active protesters.

I’m not a member of the above groups, which means, being an innocent subject of the UK, my life is at risk when the security services are targetting the above groups.

Once again, security services were on high paranoid alert, itchy trigger fingers, or in this case, itchy baton hand.

And if we are to believe that the slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes was an honest, sincere mistake, WHAT BLOODY LESSONS WERE LEARNED?

I feel sorry for Ian Tomlinson’s widow and family. I feel sorry for the grueling smear and dirty tricks campaign that is about to befall them.

You know the drill by now, check the boxes which apply:

It will probably take about 3-4 years, and in the end they may be lucky to win a simple breach of the Health & Safety at Work Act against the Met, along with a “Sorry” and “Lessons have been learned”.

After all, if they can get away with shooting an innocent man, they can get away with shoving one too.

[Whodunnit] Killing In The Name Of…

I have been debating an atheist called postsimian over at The Friendly Atheist but it’s getting far too long and off topic now so I’ve decided to post a response back here.

I said I’d respond if PS persuaded me of his/her arguments and after reading his/her last response there are a couple of things I do have to concede. Yep shock horror.

If you want to follow the debate from the beginning, head over and read the comments on Hermant’s post: Foxhole Atheist Jeremy Hall Tells His Story.

[Abortion] 9 x 4

29/02/2008 – UPDATE: It’s official that this has to be the most popular post I’ve ever written. I’m getting visits into the 100’s daily and mostly landing at this page. But the reason for this update is that it’s come to my attention that some readers are being misled into thinking that the dead/murdered/killed/terminated/aborted baby in the second picture is Kimberly Mueller. I did not state this- in fact I provided a link to the news report that stated baby Kimberley was born the worlds smallest surviving baby.

In actual fact Kimberly Mueller is alive and well growing up with her ‘wanted’ parents. Please note that my reference to the familiarity of the image was to draw an inference between the two, that the second child was not only alive but had every possibility of health and life ahead of it, and was at a similar age to baby Kimberley before being made dead.

It’s startling, upsetting and sadly a reality, I don’t make apologies for this. I truly hope that perhaps someone considering an abortion in the second trimester would find this post and be put off. I would hope they consider adoption, or even the fact that their own mother gave them chance. I don’t believe these children are unwanted (by God, by childless couples, by the church or people of compassion), but I do believe for every ‘abortion’ there is an unwanted mother.

36. That’s the number of weeks, roughly, that it takes for a pregnancy to come to full term.

24. That’s the number of weeks (in the UK) that an abortion can be legally carried out up to.

12. That’s the ‘safety zone’, the number of weeks between 24 and 36 for a growing fetus/unborn child.

15. That’s the number of weeks that baby Kimberly Mueller was born prematurely (that makes her 21 weeks old as a fetus/child).

If baby Kimberly was killed terminated now, it would not be called ‘termination’, it would be called murder.

Here’s a picture of baby Kimberly, weighing just 10.5 ounces:

I’m trying to figure out where I’ve seen a similar looking picture before… [please do not click to continue if you are of a sensitive nature]

[Abortion] Motherly Love

A while ago mattghg blogged an article for the Times by Caitlin Moran, on why abortion is the ultimate motherly act.

The basis of her argument is simply that “…ending a pregnancy 12 weeks into gestation is incalculably more moral than bringing an unwanted child into this world.” and interestingly she draws on religion to reinforce her argument:

[Cover-Ups] Test Case For Legalised Murder Under Terror Laws

It turns out the execution shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes was a test case for the Met.

“It is not about diminishing the tragedy of Charles de Menezes’ death. We see it as a test case, not only for policing in London but for the police service nationally.” – Commander Moir Stewart

Gosh! Really? So did De Menezes know he was just being volunteered for a test case? What determines if the ‘test’ is successful?

The way I see it for The Met, if this ‘test case’ is successful, they have a license to shoot anyone they like in the head, so long as it is in the name of terror. If unsuccessful, the public at least has the assurity that if they do get murdered killed they can make a Health & Safety claim.

Tags: Dark Side of the Light Christian Satire De Menezes Metropolitan Police Stockwell Tube Killing Health and Safety Test Case Terrorism

Add to del.icio.us

[Paranoia] It’s Always the Quiet Ones

I think I’ve finally figured out how to stay safe and avoid getting murdered. Ask yourself the question: Could ‘Bob next door’ be serial killer? You may never have asked this question before but I am about to reveal a truth to you, pay attention, be warned!

Every now and then you see these stories in the papers or on the TV. Serial killing family with 30 bodies discovered under their patio, or serial killer who brought people back to his apartment before butchering them finally caught after 15 years.

Have you noticed they always interview the neighbour’s? And the story is always the same, “he was a nice man, never bothered anyone, quiet, kept himself to himself”.

See, it’s not the crazy stalker folk you have to avoid. It’s the quiet neighbour’s who are the real threat. Those friendly neighbour’s who don’t make too much noise, always respect your property/boundaries, obey the law etc… If you have a neighbour like this I suggest you start planning to move, don’t leave a forwarding address, just get out of there right now! If you can’t, at least have a relative call or check in on you everyday at the same time.

Here is a list of things I’ve compiled, that you should avoid if you suspect you are living next door to a serial killer:

• Taking a bath or shower with the radio playing whilst your doors are unlocked
• Nearby ponds and lakes
• Inviting your quiet neighbour round for coffee
• Going round to your neighbour’s for coffee and wandering into the wrong room instead of the bathroom
• Asking your neighbour if you can borrow anything
• Asking about your neighbour’s collection of paintings, furniture, spears or wedding photos (from several different weddings- she is always the bride)
• Asking your neighbour if you can go in their garage/shed
• Poking around in your neighbour’s garage/shed and discovering something that is out of place
• Owning a dog which is partial to digging
• Owning a dog which is partial to barking at shifty people
• Mentioning your suspicions to your snooping/reporter relative
• Inviting your snooping/reporter relative to stay for a few days
• Taking on a lodger with good references (obviously made-up!)
• Trying to discover more about the history of your old house

Today I was surfing for rental properties in Banbury. Found a decent priced place and emailed to book a viewing. Then I wondered what the area was like so I did a google for the street and building and came across an interesting local news article published in May:

Driver Is Held Up By Three Gunmen

It got me thinking about the kind of people you would be sharing an apartment block with. You can never be sure…

Be vigilant people!

Tags: Dark Side of the Light Christian Satire Quiet Ones Neighbours Serial Killer Safety Security Murder

Add to del.icio.us

[Police State] Killing Now a Breach of Health & Safety at Work Act

“Are the Met now going to issue us guidelines on how not to look like a terrorist, in order to prevent us coming to a similar fate?”

(Raw text, sorry but no links could be restored)

The killers of Jean Charles De Menezes in Stockwell Tube station last summer will not be prosecuted. Instead, their employers will be prosecuted for a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Reassuring for the employees of the Metropolitan Police Force I’m sure, not so reassuring for the rest of us.

We’ll never actually know what was going through the minds of the killers of Jean Charles De Menezes as he boarded the tube one morning in July, however what we do know is that they made there decision prima facie. They looked at his clothing, his ethnicity, his actions and determined that it somehow qualified for a potential terrorist and so had to be ‘stopped’ before he potentially blew anyone up.

The fact that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to prosecute any officer involved in the killing should worry us all. What does insufficient evidence mean? It means that it cannot be proved that the officers who shot De Menezes committed an act of murder or manslaughter. For murder or manslaughter to be proved it would have to be determined beyond reasonable doubt that they did not believe they were killing a terrorist. In other words, they were unable to distinguish a terrorist from an innocent civilian.

“In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and therefore, as we cannot disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute them for murder or any other related offence.” – Stephen O’ Doherty – CPS

Therefore, if a police officer, prima facie, observes your clothing, your ethnicity and your actions and comes to a belief you are a potential terrorist, he can shoot you in the head, on site, then claim that he genuinely believed you were a terrorist. After all, how are you going to disprove someone’s beliefs?

Are the Met now going to issue us guidelines on how not to look like a terrorist, in order to prevent us coming to a similar fate?

“However I have concluded that the operational errors indicate that there had been a breach of the duties owed to non-employees under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, by the Office of Commissioner of Police and I have authorised a prosecution under that act.” – O’Doherty

Considering this ruling, perhaps the family of De Menezes will now have to take a different approach (no win no fee accident compensation) to getting justice.

Tags: Abandon All Fear T-Shirts

Add to del.icio.us