Blood on our hands?

Just recently a young Australian named Jake joined the Daesh death cult calling itself IS. He left his home in Melbourne, got to the IS so called 'homeland' and became yet another young person who has been drawn to that that cause. The latest report alleges that he became a suicide bomber. Some of his blog posts indicate that he expected to die. So he's gone the same way as hundreds or thousands of youthful people, some of them from the U.S. or Australia or Europe, who've been consumed by the evil thing that claims to be retaking the world over in the name of God. There are those who find excuses for people who do this, and for Islamic terrorists generally, trying to argue that it's the Western world's fault, we've provoked them, and so on. I say humbug, I don't accept that at all. But I do have one observation to make. Jake Bilardi was sometimes bullied. He was pushed around and given a hard time, to the point where it seems it left him wanting to lash out and get back at the tormentors; and instead, he let himself be persuaded that he must die trying to change the world, by people who are worse than the tormentors who gave him a hard time. That's part of the wretchedness of it. The cause he took up is no improvement on the thing he wanted to change. Now I won't accept that it is everyone else's fault he made this choice. Millions of people suffer from the oafish and cruel treatment of others. They do not all decide to kill or maim and try to convince themselves they are doing something heroic in the process. But as soon as I heard, and saw evidence of this kid being bullied, I thought of others like Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold who carried out the horrible mass shooting at Columbine High School; and others who have turned maniac mass murderer after being trashed and mistreated by those around them. It is TOO EASY to say they were driven to it, and it could insult them by suggesting that they are too simple to take responsibility for their actions and abide by moral choices like the rest of their society. For all I know, the people mentioned and others like them might have done something desperate even if they had not been aggravated. I can't tell and I won't accept that they are blameless victims. But one thing I know: when someone is bullied or trashed by people who do it just because they can get away with it, then those victimising them are doing evil and should be confronted by the fact. Human beings have a soul and a conscience. It is moral laziness and wickedness for them to push around and victimize someone they see as weaker, or someone they despise because that person does not impress them. They justify their behaviour by saying life is a competition and the cream rises to the top. SO DOES THE SCUM. People who win in this world and hold others in contempt would do well to read the parable of Rich Dives and Lazarus the beggar. Dives had plenty in this world, and did not care for those who were starving. Dives went to Hell and the beggar who starved went to Heaven. Those who misuse those they are able to misuse will answer to God. The day is coming. God will make people realize what they refused to accept in this life. Come again Lord Jesus.

Humans propose but God will decide.

I've read two political commentators who advanced the same interesting explanation for our world's recent troubles. Their explanation is that for several centuries after the beginnings of Islam in the Seventh Century A.D. as the Christian calendar dates it, Moslem attackers were very successful in conquering the areas around them. Starting in what is now Saudi Arabia, they expanded the Caliphate, the area ruled by Islam and according to its law. For a time they reached into Spain and other parts of Europe. That was where El Cid made his name, the Spanish warrior who led a successful fight against Moslem invaders from North Africa. Part of Eastern Europe also were under their rule. That is why there are still Moslems on Bosnia, and other parts of what was once Yugoslavia, and the Eastern parts of what was the Czar's Russian empire and then the Soviet Union. There was a time when the Islamic rulers of the Middle East reached that far. Then the tide turned, Christianity or at least nominal Christian powers and rulers beat them back. Then after the Renaissance, and the great advances of European civilization up to the Industrial Revolution, Europe returned the 'compliment' by invading the Middle East, with Napoleon Bonaparte taking Egypt. So by the reckoning of some Islamic thinkers, history has 'gone wrong' and they need to set it right. Their view is that Islam is meant to rule the whole world and they have to make that happen. So if they mean to keep making that happen the rest of the world has a fight on its hands. What some people, myself included call the 'free world' is going to have to resist the attempts by militant Islamists to impose a world wide caliphate or Islamist state on us all. If these commentators are right then we can expect more of the sort of attacks that we've seen in Paris and Sydney recently, and in Canada when a soldier on ceremonial duty was killed. Now some of the left respond to this by carping about the attempts of Christians to impose their beliefs. It is true that some vile things were done by the conquistadors in South America. There were also the Crusades, which caused great bloodshed and by some accounts atrocities also. That response by the fashionable left was predictable. They will try to say that 'religion' as they call it, will always cause conflict. But is the Christian approach, the GENUINE Christian approach, ever as barbarous and the behaviour of the Daesh (or IS) invaders in the Middle East, murdering children because they refuse to renounce their beliefs? Whatever has been done by Europeans calling themselves Christians, the way of Jesus was to spread the WORD, the GOOD NEWS, not to commit wholesale genocide. And here is a critical point. Jesus in person told his followers that if a village would not receive them in His name, then depart from it and shake the dust of it from their feet. He did NOT say to kill them all, as have some of the barbarians claiming to represent Islam in Syria and Iraq today, or the thugs who attacked the World Trade Centre towers, or who bombed busses in England or firebombed a night club in Bali. Jesus said to leave them, and go on elsewhere, NOT to threaten them with death if they will not convert. And Christianity, by the authority of the Bible, does not mandate death for people who renounce the Christian faith. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. So I defend Christianity, asserting that it does not have the record of bloodshed and cruelty that other belief systems have employed in attempting to spread their influence. I have this confidence also. Though shocking things may yet happen, the TRUTH will triumph. Jesus will prevail, and His Word will be heard all over the world. Come again, Lord Jesus. The world waits in pain for the return of its Saviour.

It's come to us.

It's come to us.


Just before Christmas, we had a terrorist incident in Sydney, N.S.W. the capital of my home state. It had to happen, we're part of the world that the militant Islamists have directed their hate against. An individual entered a café and held people hostage for hours before finally shooting two of them fatally, a lawyer and the café manager. It caused huge grieving in Sydney, as the press reported; and made the news overseas, I've been told. It came a bit close to home, as well. My wife and I don't live in Sydney but four of our children do, and one of our sons and his girlfriend have been in that café where it happened. We're thankful they weren't there that day, needless to add. But I'm struck by the way some people are still trying to minimize the influence and significant role of militant Islamism in this thing. I don't say "Islam" because I know well that many practicing Muslims do not involve themselves in, or sympathise with, this terrorist and hostile behaviour of that sort. But it is futile at least and blindly stupid at worst to pretend that Islamism, militant fanatical offshoot of Islam is not anything to do with it. It is. The gunman involved forced some of those he was holding at gunpoint to display an Islamist flag in the café window and invoked the cause of Islamist retribution against the west for fighting against the cult that calls itself Islamic State. So militant Islamism is involved, it is not just a case of one person being disturbed as the apologists have tried to argue. This attempt at playing down the terrorist danger is akin to the appeasement of Hitler that the leaders of Europe engaged in, in a futile attempt to stop a war. It's like the proverbial ostrich burying its head in the sand. The hope seems to be that if you ignore the thing it will go away. That's part of the problem the western world has in facing and dealing with this business. Some people, the 'new age' quasi left are trying to tell us there is no threat here and we should not act as though there is. If I was more paranoid I would suspect them of trying to undermine the resolve of the western world, specifically Australia here, to face the danger and recognize it. My question: what do they hope to achieve, and how long do they think they can keep insulting peoples' intelligence and keep credibility.
I hear that the surviving Boston bomber is going on trial. What sort of things are being said about him? Are people trying to claim he is a victim?

Before the shooting starts.

                                               Before the shooting starts.


So far, we don't have the horror in Australia that has shown up again in America: school shootings. It might only be a matter of time. I pray we never see it again, in the U.S. or Finland or Scotland or wherever else has seen this sort of evil.  But IF anyone asked me how to stop it, I'd have one idea apart from the same-old same-olds about gun control, armed guards in schools, etc. Not that I'm criticizing attempts to stop it, it's just that there is one I've not heard anyone suggest so far.
Everybody, be careful how you treat everybody else. You know, the Golden Rule? Treat people the way you prefer to be treated yourself?
Perhaps I'm being too obvious. Or is the obvious being forgotten?
The two boys who cut loose at Columbine were, I've read, social isolates who were bullied and rejected  by others. The young man who perpetrated the horror at Sandy Hook Elementary was beset by mental or psychological disorders. By some accounts his family, being survivalists, had a suspicious view of the world around them. Our press have not  yet gone into detail about the two shooters who attacked this week. The young man who shot up a college campus in Virginia was described as an outsider. If I'm misinformed, by all  means tell me how. But consider if you will what I'm saying here. Would people lash out and perpetrate the abomination of mass killing if they felt that the society they were part of  cared about them, that they were among friends?
I could be over simplifying. Sometimes a person becomes isolated because they have driven others away, not because others rejected them. But I'll stick by one point here. Having spent thirteen years in schools as a student, four years on a  university campus as a student and twenty five years in schools as a teacher, I'm sure I know this: some individuals get everybody else's stuff dumped on them because too many people want someone to look down on, and they pick on whoever they think will put up with it. That is to say, they are pettily spiteful, insecure and small  minded, and cowardly in the way they look for someone who will 'take it', while crawling to anyone who they are scared of or want to be seen with. It's a sad world sometimes. So I'm still wondering, would people lash out and do the shocking things they do if they thought they were hurting someone they had reason to care about?
Boys need to avoid showing contempt for girls, and girls need to avoid showing contempt for boys equally. Young respect the old, older ones respect the young.
I once replied to an email which came from a stranger, to see what they wanted. It seemed they did not know that the email had even been sent to me, and instead of saying that politely because it was really not my fault, they came back with "I don't even know you, you creep."  Silly girl. That was uncalled for. In my case it did not spark retaliation because I'm not a nut job about to explode, but it is the sort of dopey uncalled for rudeness that sometimes proves to be the last straw.
This had been said before: societies which are crowded, where people live physically close to each other, are the ones with the most developed codes of etiquette for treating others. Politeness is a social lubricant which can avoid offense. Simple courtesy or kindness can defuse anger in others, or at least not trigger a reaction that ends in blood.
Of course it's not all that simple. The things going on inside someone's head can be complex and make them impossible to predict. But I wonder: if more people took the trouble to be civil, instead of 'no-one messes with me' abrupt, would we see fewer outbreaks of rage?

It could be worse.

It could be worse.


It doesn't always help to be told to count your blessings, if you're feeling dismal because you see everything in such a negative way that nothing looks good. That's the trouble: it's the way you feel, no matter what objective reality is. But a sermon I heard recently was a valuable and timely message for  me. The pastor, who has a son with serious health problems, related how he had a flash of realization one day in the past. He was well and truly down over his son's suffering, and the pain it was causing the family; and the message was sent to him in the Spirit, that God is still worthy to be praised. There are things we can never understand in this life because our perceptions and our intelligence are too limited, from the perspective of the God of this universe. We can't see things He can and make sense of them and the reason why He is letting them happen. The text for that message was Job, not surprisingly. It was something I'd read before but it did not hurt to hear it again. We will have some wretched times in this life but we should never let go of that realization, God has not forgotten us and is still acting for our benefit. He is still the True and Only God.
Now I've said this, I just hope I don't undergo and time of trouble. But whatever happens, well, the truth is the truth. May we always be upheld by that knowledge.

                                           Are you blaming me?


News tonight reports hundreds of women and small children, some children unaccompanied, getting into the United States illegally then handing themselves in and wanting to be allowed to stay. The same sort of thing happens in Australia, although it's a bit harder because we don't have land borders with any other nation. They come by boat or plane instead. And wherever it happens, sanctimonious opportunists follow, calling themselves caring people by claiming the moral high ground.
Now real refugees have a need for help, but like any other worthy cause, this one gets exploited unscrupulously and self righteously. I would never want to be unsympathetic to those in real need, but I won't be bullied and morally blackmailed by humbug; and there are some dishonest claims being made in regard to illegal arrivals.
The illegal arrivals, whether genuine refugees or not, are housed, not abandoned in the wilderness.. In the U.S. case reported tonight, emergency accommodation has been set up. And we see various self styled commentators loudly condemning the U.S. Government because the accommodation is not five star. I'm using an analogy here. Suppose fifty people turned up at someone's house, wanting to be taken in, and the house owner is criticized because they can't find a bedroom and a banquet for all of them? Why are they being treated as though these people were their responsibility?
The U.S. Government is not responsible for the citizens of other nations. If they enter the country in an illicit way, so that it is not possible or mandatory to plan for them, why is the U.S. Government to blame? It's the same with our Australian Federal Government. Some fifty thousand people arrived by boat before a change of government and a new policy that put a stop to it. Fifty thousand extra people are not easy to cater for without proper notice and planning, and our government is NOT responsible for the citizens of other nations. If they are genuine refugees, which past experience shows they may NOT be at all, then they have claims under the U.N. Charter. But it is absurd sanctimony for critics to stand there abusing the government because it can't lay out a lavish reception for them. We have our own poor and disaster  victims to look after too. Some of the unauthorized arrivals are wannabe migrants trying to jump the queue by claiming refugee status. They do not have a true and legitimate claim to residence in the country they enter. And even where the arrivals are genuine refugees, the country in which they arrive may have its own resources stretched providing for them. Both the countries discussed here have suffered major natural disasters, and their own  citizens need support and financial assistance to recover. We have to consider those before someone tells us we have to look after thousands of other countries' citizens as well. People who enter without permission or notice should not think that facilities are all laid out for them as a matter of right. The worst part of this is that the attitudes of people become hardened. I would never want to deny someone in real need, if I could help them, but I won't be told that I have to give up our own family's stuff to some outsider who demands it by gate crashing the country without permission. Self righteous critics walking around sounding off are an insult to genuine social conscience - in my humble opinion.