"Please don't, I'm saving myself for my priest"

A new movement toward abstinence that has been sweeping across America and England for the past 10 years, has hit New Zealand. Christian teachings and morals campaigners have always promoted abstaining from sex before marriage, but now there are church organisations working hard to persuade teenagers to abstain, and remain chaste. The idea here is, you wear your religious convictions in the form of a tacky ring.

The ring states to any prospective suitor: look but do not touch.

Those who wear and promote the rings argue that abstinence is the only way to practice truly safe sex, and using this sort of logic would no doubt like to see the closure of drinking establishments to prevent alcoholism. The rings come in men's & women's styles, plus a declaration to remain pure until marriage (civil unions just wouldn't do)

But why stop at just a ring?

Why not go 'the whole hog' and re-introduce the full chastity belt and be done with?

Imagine 'daddies little angel' goes on a date with the open-side flanker from the first fifteen.

What use is a flaming ring going to be, after she consumes six alco-pops, and this testosterone charged teen starts groping round in the back seat? Her purity is going to be a hell of a lot safer in a kevlar re-make of a 15th century chastity belt ,rather than an innocuous religious inscription, microscopically written on to a crappy $25 ring, a chastity belt would have plenty of space to state in luminous letters "my dad holds a firearms licence and has ridden for the Highway 61".

You also have to ask – will they find any candidates in New Zealand at all for the male version of the ring? Is the small pool of potential male wearers merely just crying-out for hormone treatment?

As chance would have it, my wife is a very proficient fashion designer and is working diligently towards a modern-day version of the traditional chastity belt (for marketing purposes we'll be renaming it a 'Purity Only Belt' or P.O for short).

She has kindly offered to model the prototype pictured below.

It comes with optional 'statements' embossed largely upon the front.

You have a choice of:

- Twins run in my family
- Will you be a dad to my two other children?
- Stop confusing HIV Positive with full blown Aids
- Do you mind if I inject before we start?
- I have incontinence problems, it helps if I wear nappies
- Don't worry my family broke me in
- I can explain the red sores and pus

Orders are being taken online here and it's extra if you want your own personalised 'statement'. We sold out of rings ages ago, so don't ask.

Celibate? You can't give it away!

Attention males, given a choice between (a.) receiving a million bucks for being chemically castrated (b.) continuing a have a sex life. What would you favour?

Ask this question to any guy wandering this planet, and apart from those living in abject poverty and those aged 90 plus - the almost universal answer would be B.

Biologically men are designed to breed, slaves to millions of years of evolution.

Nothing can stop this genetic driving force & the irrepressible power of sex within males.

But some try, and 'they' it seems, are fighting a losing battle.

One of these is the 300 year old Catholic order: De La Salle.

It appears (Christchurch Press 21/05/08) the New Zealand branch of De La Salle brotherhood is battling dwindling numbers.

One of the major tenants of The De La Selle brothers is lifelong vow of celibacy.

De La Salle spokesman Brother Mark McKeon is quoted as stating the obvious, which is “While a life in the church might not be for everyone, it offered a satisfying alternative for some Catholic men”.

By ‘some’ I gather he’s referring to the rare male who would choose chemical castration given the above options(?).

And in terms of satisfaction – they don’t come any better than ‘a great shag’, a fact lost on Brother McKeon but not on the twenty year olds they wish to entice into a life without sex.

Fighting a rear guard action and the very foundations of human sexuality the brotherhood have launched a website that claims to provide ‘intimate details of their previously private world’.

This isn’t obviously intimacy the rest of society enjoys and for this very reason, and unless the brotherhood can come up with a latter-day Moses, the tides are coming in and the De La Selles sand-castle is about to vanish into the secular sea.

To see if you are suited to a ‘life of faith’ why not complete the De La Salles ‘Test’ [click and see how you go]

My test results were:

You’re a positive and happy person to be around. Popular with your friends, you’re not afraid to accept the challenge to be a leader when necessary. You’re hungry for new experiences and excited about the future. You’re committed to making a difference to those less fortunate. You’re seeking a bigger life full of purpose and meaning - a life less ordinary. Being a Brother isn’t for everyone. Could it be for you?

I was about to post my Application, but I discovered in the ‘small print’ on the site, you’re not allowed to have kids. Bugger, and I’d just taken my first course of female hormones.

Neighbours cross over religious cross

Damn Gerry Anderson was right!

Those evil Mysterons, have been sending their mind-bending rays to earth (where’s Captain Scarlet when you need him?) and we need to protect ourselves from their effects, before it’s too late.

Mankind is finally waking-up to the threat, starting in Mount Roskill, Auckland!

Fear not peoples of earth, the Gupta family has designed the following symbol, which when placed on a roof, wards away evil spirits and brings good-luck:

Hmmm, may be it's just me, but I think I may have seen that design some where else?

In a war film I saw or something? Death camps come to mind along with a dictator sporting a funny mustache?

Anyway, I’m pleased to indicate this ‘crocked cross upsetting the Auckland neighbours’ business has all been sorted, Captain Scarlett and Green are here to rescue us.

The Gupta family have bowed to pressure & replaced their religious symbol with one of my own design (my design commision invoice is in the mail)


Courtesy of The Canterbury Atheists, we now have:

Courts soft on crims who use religion as a defence

An Assyrian Christian has been convicted after hitting his 20-year-old daughter.

The reasons behind Ishak Ishak (pictured above) dishing-out his hiding to his daughter was that she was going out with a Muslim.

His daughters choice in suitor would have bought shame on his family and that was sufficient enough for him to act in what would be construed as a 'crime of honour'.

We are all familiar with 'Honour Crimes' from overseas, where male relatives pursue and sometimes kill female members of their family, but in this case, the crime occurred in suburban Wellington.

This wasn't Pakistan.

The Judge in the case told Ishak he had to comply with the laws of New Zealand and that she was concerned at his behaviour. But not apparently concerned enough to actually imprison him, instead sentencing him to come up for sentence if called upon within nine months.

In other words he was allowed to walk free from the court, setting either a dangerous precedent or merely re-enforcing religions status in 'the eyes of the law'?

It appears, at least looking at this case, religious beliefs can be used effectively as a defence against the full force of the law in terms of punishment at least. One's religious/cultural beliefs are evidently mitigating factors and will be taken into account when sentencing.

What other conclusion can be reached?

It was outlined in court Ishak had gone to his daughter's room while she was in bed to confront her about going out with a Muslim. He became angry and abusive and hit out at her several times while she cowered under a blanket.

Now let's see what would happen if we take the religious factor out of the case completely.

1.) Ishak,returns home from works, gets into an argument with his daughter,assaults her. He says in his defence "I was angry" & offers profuse regrets for his actions. It's likely the court would ensure he get's anger management to treat his problem.

2.) Ishak, comes home from the pub intoxicated and assaults his daughter. Doubtless in this example some drug & alcohol rehabilitation would be issued by the court.

Looking at these scenario's it's therefore prudent to ask - why didn't the judge restrict Ishak from practicing his religion?

He was open to the court his 'beliefs' were behind the attack, so the judge was in a position in this case to strike at the issue behind his criminal behaviour, in the same way were his defence team to blame alcohol as the catalyst.

But an individuals rights to practice their faith is sacresent, even when it leads to practices deemed criminal.

This we see, time after time.

Family First: For God & Country

Family First are currently fronting a massive media campaign in an attempt to achieve the 300,000 threshold necessary to initiate a referendum. The petition needed 280,275 signatures to force a referendum, but recently fell short after 13% were excluded because they were either illegible, the signatory's date of birth could not be confirmed, or involved people who signed multiple times (perhaps the liberal application of the wooden spoon is needed to remind signatories to be honest?)

Family Firsts latest ‘beef’: the new smacking law.

All this effort, expense and melodrama for a non-binding referendum, seems wasted to most neutrals. A recent N.Z Police report stated they receive on average, just one complaint per week in relation to smacking. Scaremongering ‘the courts would be full of cases of good parents being treated as criminals’ have come to nought. In fact based on these statistics, and the disinterest by N.Z Police to change the new law, you’d have to wonder what all the fuss is all about?

To background this, Family First are a thinly veiled Christian Political pressure group. Their leader Bob McCoskie (pictured below) says his organisation is “the voice of the family, it’s not the voice for Christianity”. Then in the next breath goes on to say “but you’re right, people involved in it have a Christian background”. That’s like Martin Bormann stating “Hey, we are not Nazi’s, we’re National Socialists”.

To give Family First their dues, they are very media savy and have made headlines with some regularity & some what laboriously in the same vein as past self-styled moral guardians. The Media know where to go to ‘get a bite’ and I guess it’s a bit hard these days getting interviews with Graham Capill (incarcerated) & Patricia Bartlett (r.i.p). Family First fill this ‘chicken little’ vacuum nicely.

F.F is the group which wanted the public to boycott Hells Pizza chain after their ‘Condom’ promotion. Personally I would have thought the name alone would have been enough to scare-off Bob and his righteous bunch.

F.F wanted ‘Californication’ taken from our T.V screens and the way to do this was to rally support, in the form from a boycott on advertisers who dared showed their wares during breaks in the programme.

F.F protested against ‘The Boobs on Bikes’ and tried to ruin the titillation (pun intended) for bunking schools-boys.

F.F successfully had an Aid’s Foundation magazine advert banned. Those naughty guys at the Foundation had a picture of a penis of all things. And god forbid, to make thing worse – it was regaling in a bright coloured condom!

F.F warned parents of teenagers of the evils of the internet by targeting www.missbimbo.com . Never heard of it? Well neither had I. But after a quick preview, it didn’t make my muster in terms of porn content so it won’t be going on my ‘favourites’. F.F didn’t outright ask to ban the site, rather ‘filter’ it.

Bob himself, complained to The Broadcasting Standards Authority in 2005 about the use of the words “ass” & “wanker” in an episode of the cartoon The Simpsons. BSA dismissed the complaint ruling the words we used in a satirical rather than abusive manner. This is the view most balanced New Zealanders would take to comedy.

So you’ll see from their track record, F.F are right into bans, boycotts and censorship.

The exception being: smacking. On the subject of belting ones own child in the privacy of ones home, F.F have the audacity to trot-out the line “this is Nanny State telling us what to do”.

Parents have a god given right to smack their brats, but not to settle down in their lounges and watch some crappy melodrama, staring the guy out of the X-Files, who’s got ‘a thing’ for nuns.

There’s of course a grand reason why F.F carry on in this contradictory & duplicitous fashion. It’s called ‘The Bible’. Biblical texts are F.F’s sole compass and where it points F.F tear off like a rabid pack of hounds chasing a fox.

‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’ sound familiar to anyone?

F.F camouflage their agenda behind warm fuzzy terms like - ‘traditional values’.

They want us to return to those romantic by-gone days (re-runs of The Walton’s anyone?) and get families eating dinner together. Never mind if dad takes his belt to the kids for not eating their brussel-sprouts.

One thing that get’s any Christian Pressure group frothing at the mouth, is homosexuality, and F.F is no different.

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” [Leviticus 20:13]

Now F.F are politically astute enough not to come straight out and ‘doom those evil gays & lesbians to hells eternal flames’. Instead they veil their agenda under headings like ‘Children Deserve Better’. in which they outline principals in flowery terms like ‘the natural family is the union of a man or a woman’.

Loving Parents can only be ones that are married. End of story.

And don’t dare mention ‘Civil Unions’. Dear oh dear. Unmarried couples will never do.

They also take delight telling the heathen secular community what to do with their reproductive organs. Putting them into condoms isn’t one of them.

F.F rallied against teens being vaccinated for cervical cancer - because it could be unsafe for the woman’s ‘moral character’. A comforting thought to cling to for the victims & their families struck down by this killer.

Effectively if Family First can’t get you to accept the word of Jesus - they’ll pressure politicians legislate accordingly.

One can only hope (praying is naturally a waste of time) Family First will go the way of The Christian Heritage Party.

Oblivion or behind bars.

Footnote; More evidence of the ineptitude of ecclesiastical politicians came with parliamentary vote to make the smacking an offence. Let’s not forget Gordon Copeland gave his reason for leaving United Future, as a difference of opinion on the yet to be passed smacking bill. But where was the freshly independent MP Copeland, when the bill was being passed and the vote was being taken? He wasn’t even in the house! That’s right he missed the final vote.

Brain Theft Auto – Christian Politician wants GTA4 Banned!

God’s watchdog, serial political party hopper, Gordon Copeland, wants to curb the rising tide of violence in New Zealand.

Copeland is quoted "Simply stated, it is time to reverse the tide of violence in New Zealand”. We have to have the courage somewhere, sometime, to say ‘no’ and I agree with Kiwi parents and the police, that this is not a bad place to start.".

And exactly where is Copeland’s starting point in reducing violent crime in New Zealand?

Fathers, becoming involved with their kids, perhaps?

Zero tolerance?

Nope, none of these tried and true methods, instead the panacea to reducing violence is (wait for it): ban video games!

Mind you we are not talking just any video games, specifically it happens to be the world’s most popular one.

The just released ‘Grand Theft Auto 4’ (GTA 4 to the cooler & younger amongst us)

For the record, my eldest lad has this game which he been playing every single spare moment over the last week (in between nihilistic acts, education, texting and sport)

So far he hasn’t joined The Russian Mafia, although after thinking about Copeland’s concerns, I felt it appropriate to confiscate the households Russian Dictionary and taken the ammunition clip off the children’s Kalashnikov’s (you can’t be too sure about these things you see) I also haven’t noticed any discernable change in his driving habits. He’s still far too a nervous driver to even contemplate stealing a car, and the Police could pursue and apprehend him comfortably, by bike.

All in all, he seems fairly balanced for a teen of his age and able to distinguish between the virtual world and the real world.

If Copeland is in the mood to ban & censor things (which his ‘lot’ always are) a great starting point would be say a book, that has resulted through-out history in it’s followers killing millions, slavery and persecution of Jews and Homosexuals on a mass scale.

Oh that’s right, this happens to be the very same book Copeland bases his life on. Silly ol' secular me.

Copeland is strangely silent on the soon to be released video game ‘Kingdom of the Heavens’. That game has a similar degree of violence to GTA 4 except the story line goes something like this: you are a Christian warrior sent to reclaim Jerusalem from the pagan hordes by butchering infidels by the ox cart load.

Funny, I can picture the whole Copeland family getting hours of enjoyment playing ‘Kingdom of the Heavens’.

Honour Thy Children: Christchurch Church helps convicted Child Killers attempts to keep her new born

A Christchurch woman who was found guilty of helping to torture her two-year-old daughter to death in 1992 has had another baby.

Tania Witika was sentenced to 16 years in prison after her baby, Delcelia, was found lying dead in a pool of blood, faeces and urine, while she and the baby's stepfather, Eddie Smith, were out partying at a friend's place in South Auckland.

The toddler had been badly burned after being put in a bath of hot water. Hit so hard that her appendix burst. Had her jaw broken. Her blood was splattered on walls and carpets.

What sort of sick individual could do this to a two year old toddler?

Facing a long jail sentence, Witika claimed she was not responsible for her actions due to 'battered-woman's-syndrome', claiming that Smith would beat her whenever she tried to help Delcelia. But her defence was ignored by the jury when evidence was shown at her trial she had kept notes about her sexual gratification and role in the physical abuse of Delcelia.

“With him I can reach a fantastic orgasm that I could never, or even thought of reaching."

Her own perverted pleasures were paramount over the torment of her own young child.

A home video taken on the day Delcelia died was shown to the jury. The video showed Witika happy, smiling and enjoying herself with Smith. Witika claimed she had gone partying with Smith while Delcelia was dying because Smith had threatened to 'waste her' with a steel bar.

Medical evidence showed gouges in Delcelia's chin were made by a woman.

Witika clearly has psychological issues.

It is therefore hardly surprising Child, Youth and Family (CYF) recognised the threat she posed to children & obtained custody of the unborn baby when it heard Witika, now using the surname Hopping, was pregnant.

On the 29th April, Witika gave birth to that child, another girl.

Literally at the birthing bedside were her new support group: The Grace Vineyard Christian Fellowship.

Yes, praise the lord, Tania Gaye Witika has found god!

And whilst the majority of New Zealanders applauded CYF initiative to take custody of the child (I say they should have taken the opportunity to tie her tubes at the same time) supporters from The Grace Vineyard Christian Fellowship argued instead for Witika to remain the guardian.

When The Christchurch Press Newspaper (03/05/2008) asked her supporters about the position they were taking in this custody issue, they remained tight-lipped, some what embarrassed no doubt, their stand on behalf of a convicted child killer was out in the public domain.

If the The Grace Vineyard Christian Fellowship took their ‘god goggles’ off for just five minutes, they would see that ‘finding Jesus’ is not a prerequisite to ensuring the new child’s safety.

The Grace Vineyard Christian Fellowship can never be around Witika or her baby 24 hours of the day, or when say she get’s home drunk after hard night partying.

Would members of The Grace Vineyard Christian Fellowship be happy to leave their own children in Witika’s care if they went away on holiday?

Witika (a.k.a Hopping ) still poses a major threat to children irrespective of her new found support group and their superstitious beliefs.

I leave you with some strangely ironic quotes (below) from The Grace Vineyard Christian Centres web site.

Think about the life poor Delcelia endured as you read them.

"It is important for us to speak the truth, deal honestly and live uprightly"

"We want to enable and support mature relationships and family growth"

"Our job is not to succeed but to be obedient to God's calling and principles and allow Him to produce the outcomes according to His perfect will."

Out of Friar Pan and into the fire

Is that camouflage green he's wearing?

New Zealand First has highlighted the alleged involvement of Dominican Friar Peter Murnane (left) in the Waihopai spy base attack and suggested “this should send shivers up the spine of every security conscious New Zealander”.

As New Zealand First point out, it was Father Murnane, one of the three accused terrorists (oops activists), that sheltered Algerian man Ahmed Zaoui after he was released from custody.

Ahmed Zaoui was clearly a risk to the security of New Zealand when he arrived in 2002 under a false passport, and was rightfully imprisoned till his status was clarified. Courts in both a France & Belgium convicted him in absenteeism on charges of taking part in a criminal group with a view to preparing terrorist acts.

In 2004 Zaoui was bailed and left into the care of Catholic community's Dominican Priory in Auckland.

This time-frame is important, as in 2003 it was Murnane who split his blood at the feet of the U.S consulate-general in an anti-American protest against the Iraq war.

This was the very same guy entrusted to check Zaoui kept to his bail conditions after being released from prison in 2004.

Here’s the statement Murnane and his fellow protester issued at the time.

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0980.htm

In other words no lesser state functionary than The New Zealand Supreme Court, gives a known anti-American protester, the responsibility to be public’s guardian over a suspected Islamic terrorist!

If only Gilbert and Sullivan were about today, they would have enough material here to script something into a fine comic opera.

Murnane reclines in a camouflage green smoking jacket in front of the large priory fire, and passionately discusses the down-fall of ‘the great Satan’ with his grinning refugee guest, fresh from his game of celebrity football with Dave Dobbyn.

MP Ron Mark got it dead right again when he says “there appears to be a fifth column of local activists and they should take a long hard look at themselves and their strange set of values”.

“We were always opposed to Ahmed Zaoui being allowed to remain in New Zealand and being placed in the care of a religious sect,”

Ron Mark’s is clearly a politician who sees this for what it is, and is brave enough to say so.

Mark’s says “it will be interesting to see if the justice system makes the three who have been charged over the attack, pay for the damage that was done”.

Sorry Ron, it’ll be the muggin’s tax-payer who’ll pick up the bill in Waihopai.

The same way they paid for Zaoui’s legal aid (last total in excess of 2.5 million)

It may be an opportune time to remind Marks that even with the down turn in the market, The Dominican Priory still sit’s on lovely piece of real-estate.

Onward Christian Terrorists.

For those unfamiliar with the recent events, it would pay to take a look at this report.

It appears New Zealand has suffered its first ideologically driven act of internal terrorism.

But because the attackers were acting on behalf of Jesus as opposed to say Allah, the peace-nic angle to the attack, will be what the media feeds the public.

All you'll read and hear about will be ‘peace activists’ not ‘home grown Christian terrorists’.

Why so?

The spokesperson for the Aotearoa Ploughshares (the motley leftist group behind the attack) states brazenly “according to the activists they felt they were just being faithful as to how they understand the Gospels and their faith in terms of peace-making and following Jesus”.

That’s identical banter to those grainy videos Islamic terrorists submit to Al Jazeera.

Their religion not only justifies their acts, it was the foundation of them.

Immediately after setting the Kiwi taxpayer back a million bucks with their wanton vandalism, the group built a shrine and knelt in prayer to remember the people killed by United States military activity. Hardly surprisingly, no prayers appeared to have been offered to the victims of al-Qaeda.

Let’s not forget the last audible cockpit voice recordings on September 11th were “god is great” , so drawing divine inspiration before/after attacks is ‘par for the course’ with these zealots.

The job description of Peter Murnane, one of the three terrorists, is Dominican friar.

What would have happened if the same attack was undertaken by a Mullah Mohammed Omar rather than a Friar Murnane?

Would an Islamic clergyman and his associates get away with a plea “we're peace activists, not a terrorists”?

Would the media give three people of Islamic faith such an easy ride, were they to have attacked the same Government facility under indentical circumstances?

Naturally anyone of middle-eastern extraction would be branded terrorists.

And that's what these three guys are - terrorists first, activists second.