About BiblioPolit

Monday, June 18, 2007

When people think too much of themselves

When people think too much of themselves, this is what you get:

"Our report yesterday about Angelina Jolie banning press from interviews and requiring interviewers to sign contracts touched off a firestorm. Mostly it was from colleagues who were relieved that we’d finally lifted the veil on all this craziness.

"And it wasn’t just about FOX News getting banned from the red carpet. That was bad, but it wasn’t the central issue. Jolie treats all the press with hostility unless she can control the outcome of an interaction. Insisting interviewers sign contracts was an affront, considering that her movie is about the murder of a reporter who tried bravely to do his job. And then to pretend empathy by raising money at the movie for Reporters Without Borders. The hypocrisy and arrogance were overwhelming."
Read more...

Read More......

Gobsmacked!

Can this guy even sing? I read so many emails about this guy, I just had to see it for myself.

Read More......

Analemma

I did not say enema! Analemma also does not mean it is "anather" dilemma!

Go check out the analemma!

Read More......

Pluto's bark gets smaller and smaller

Ever heard of Pluto? No, not the cartoon dog! The planet! Oh, you have? Well, it seems that in the not too distant future, Pluto's continued demotion will ensure that this ex-planet will only remain a distant memory!

Pluto and its moon, Charon: An artist's impression.

Read More......

Friday, June 15, 2007

Democratic strikes

Strikes! South Africa is quite used to strikes these days. We hear of another strike and the first thought we have is that it will just be another fluctuation in the level of service offered in South Africa. Then we think, "What a nuisance!"

However, for some, it is just simply dangerous!

You see, in South Africa, when Mr. Union says jump, everybody is supposed to ask "how high and how far?"
The unions think that the government must do as they say and they further think that those
belonging to the union must strike with them, notwithstanding the fact that the last I read the constitution, this was and still is a democratic country!

But, don't confuse these unionists with the facts!
Is this a picture of democratic protest? Don't kid yourself!
The level of intimidation that people go through in this country with each strike simply speaks of the fact that our unions, like COSATO and others, still have not laid down their communistic aspirations. They remain a danger and a liability to this country. A democratic country!

Those that do not want to strike are intimidated and beaten into submission.

Imagine t
he scene at a public school where some teachers and children attended school. Some union thugs arrived at the school and beat up some teachers and threatened 4th grade children. 10 year olds, for crying out loud! These intimidators are a bunch of cowards! And, the union bosses must not say that they do not hold to this form of intimidation. It has always been like this, and they have done nothing about it, and neither will they! They will lose their display of power.

If these unions had any moral certitude they would kick these intimidating thugs out of their ranks and will not represent them!

My children attend a private school. This past week they had to go to school without their uniforms because there were threats that children with school clothes on would be targeted!

Money or your life!These unions act like a bunch of mafia-type, blackmailing thugs! "You either pay me the money you owe me or I will blow your brains out!"
Apparently blackmail is illegal in this country, but it does not apply to the unions. And don't tell me that the unions want to negotiate their pay raises. They make demands and blackmail the country and its government into compliance. "Give us what we want or else we will bring this country and its economy to a standstill!" That, dear reader, is blackmail!

So far, the government hasn't folded, and let us hope they don't! As long as the unions don't want to play the game of give and take, they cannot expect the government to do the same
.

If the government simply gives in to these demands, the unions will be back next year and the year after that. This will lead to complete ruin of this beautiful nation and soon we will have another Zimbabwe on our hands.

Perhaps the government must make some demands in return. Here is a
suggestion:
Each person that gets a raise like the one demanded will sign a new contract with the government in which they promise to uphold a high standard of service that must be quantifiable. This quantifiable standard will then be used in future pay raises through proper merit appraisals to calculate percentages. In cases where service providers work directly with the lives of people such as nurses, they may be fired directly without the 3 compulsory written warnings when it can be determined that lives were put in danger or for gross negligence.

This is just a suggestion, and has not been put forward in any detail. Of course, the signers of this new contract would be the employer, the employee and where a union is involved a representative of the union.

If only the unions could start understanding the concept of a democracy and stop this undemocratic intimidationary stunts of theirs, then we could perhaps start with real democratic strikes, but I suppose that is too much to ask from communistic throwbacks!

Read More......

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Fighting fire with fire?

Atheists, those claiming that they do not believe in God, seem to come out of the woodwork every time some well known Darwinian atheist writes a book against religion. Recently, in "evolutionary" timescales, Richard Dawkins wrote The God Delusion and Sam Harris wrote his book, Letter to a Christian Nation.

On 25 May 2007, Shaun de Waal made his contribution to the atheists fight against this God "nonsense" at the Mail&Guardian in an article titled, "Fighting fire with fire."


I recently started thinking that atheists are jealous of Christianity and other religions. Really! Christianity has a whole bunch of public holidays and the atheists have none. That must upset them terribly. However, there is at least one day set aside for atheists. April Fool's Day!

But, jokes aside!

Just like the argumentation most people present to bolster their case, even "clever" people come up with the "darndest" methods of decrying others. Take De Waal's argumentation to show how stupid Christians must be, in his examples of the way o
ut statements by people who should have known better. Statements such as the ones on God's judgement through tsunamis, earthquakes and floods. Point out the outlandish ideas coming from some Christians and decry the whole of Christianity with one stroke of the pen! How genius! I should have thought of that too! Then we could simply point to something really stupid that some atheists have done, and voila! no more atheist problems! Strawmen! Simply strawmen!

Mr. de Waal seems to have contracted the "martyrs" disease. The evolutionists version, of course! Either that or he is not paying attention to what is happening in schools in America! Writing a
bout America he says,

"Creationists are still keeping science at bay in the schools of the world’s richest, most powerful nation, retarding scientific education by centuries."
The fact is that American courts have found in favour of not allowing the Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) to be taught in American schools. This has been the stance in American schools for some time now. Further, every time a teacher in some public school tries to teach IDT, or a student in class tries to raise the issue of IDT, that wonderful institution, the ACLU, fighter for liberty and freedom of speech, comes forward with a court case against the school and teacher. The only thing being taught in American schools is evolution. Children are not even allowed to pray in school. By golly! How are Christians "keeping science at bay" in those schools? A gross over statement in my opinion!

Christians are in no way against science, per se. What Christians are against, is historical science, evolution! What Christians are for, is operational science! That which gives us the technology we have today. That which can be reproduced time and time again. Nothing within historical science can be reproduced in terms of experimentation. Historical science has produced space travel, computers, cars, genetic mapping, electricity and a host of other wonderful things we use every day! The fact is, that in Operational science, Christians have been at the forefront since the beginning of the modern scientific era. People like Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, John Dalton, Samuel F.B. Morse, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, Dr James Allan, Dr John Baumgardner, Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim to name but a few.

Short memories abound, sometimes in the most unlikely of places. Then, in other cases it is not a case of being forgetful, but deliberately steering away from what history has taught us. In his article, De Waal points to the many atrocities committed in the name of religion. If going by the amount of atrocities committed is anything to go by, then atheism and Darwinism fare even worse. One of the greatest villains the world has ever come across built his theories of supremacy and villainy straight from the evolutionary bible. I am thinking here of Hitler. His complete philosophy of eliminating the "unwanteds" in order to make sure that the perfect "race" survives was built upon Darwin's theory of evolution.

Furthermore, the millions of deaths under communism, again driven by atheism and evolution is another case in point.

Further, to point fingers at Christianity for other atrocities such as the Crusades is simply disingenuous! The Crusades came as a result of four centuries of raids and military advancement by the Muslim hordes from the Middle-East.

Stalin: February 1935Too many people lazily repeat what they have heard in this regard and end up believing the claim that "monotheism" is the cause of the worst or most evils in the world. At the root of this mindless repetition is an unexamined prejudice against religion. We have to be honest with ourselves when looking at this issue. More than 100 million people have been killed by secularist regimes in the last century alone. More people have been killed by such secularist regimes in the 20th century alone, than in all religious persecutions in all of Western history. This, of course, is just a tiny omitted fact not revealed by those who should know better, or perhaps, do not want others to know. These secularist regimes were led by men such as Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin and Hitler.

The fact is, without minimizing the impact of the people that died in the Middle Ages, that only about 300,000 people lost their lives as a result of religious persecution in Europe over a period of 300 years. Not millions of people! Compare that to more than 100,000,000 under secularist regimes in the 20th century alone! In America, the so-called witch hunt lasted for only one year with 35 deaths. Again, not millions! Further, it was the leading Christian minister in this American colony that finally brought an end to the witch trials in Salem, and those that remained in prison were released!

De Waal's statement, "9/11 is unimaginable without the over-arching religious justification
and perceived sanction of Allah," now suddenly makes no sense at all. The fact is that any type, such as those secularists mentioned above, could have done it too. The Muslims probably just beat them to it!

Further, according to De Waal, "the Christian Bible was used for centuries to justify slavery, colonialism, apartheid, the oppression of women and the persecution of homosexuals." The fact is that De Waal is right! The Bible has been used to justify all types of weird and horrible things. While there are human beings, these things will continue. The difference is, that one would be hard pressed to prove that all these things are sanctioned by the Bible itself. Concoctions come in all forms, not just in alcoholic drinks. People will end up believing what they want to believe and will use what
is available to them to show their "correct" point of view!

The Bible was used very skillfully here in South Africa by those with an evolutionary bent to implement apartheid in South Africa. By a very clever twisting of the Scriptures, millions were fooled by these "concocters" and their manipulative ways. Just because those in the National Party (and its ancestral parties) claimed to be Christian did not mean that they were Christian. Before the 2nd World War, some of these men, who were already convinced of evolution paid a visit to the 3rd Reich. There they learnt how evolution, when taken to its logical conclusion, leads to systems of classification such as apartheid. These "concocters" knew that they couldn't just proclaim from the rooftops that evolution shows that apartheid is the way to go, so they used the Bible to "prove" apartheid
as a legitimate political tool.

Be that as it may, by denouncing Christianity based on how some wayward people used the Bible to further their own evil aims, is like rejecting gravity based on the erroneous teaching of a wayward group. It would be better to go to the Source (Jesus Christ) and to find out what He has to say about Himself and the reason for His existence and what He can do for a wayward humanity. Do we fault the Hippocratic Oath because some doctors don't keep to it?

Another myth that De Waal repeats is that Christianity is an oppressor of women. The fact is that wherever Christianity became the majority religion it also brought liberty to women.
It was under the influence of Christianity that the Chinese custom of foot-binding for women, was outlawed in 1912. Since the take-over of communism in China, that heinous practice has returned. Clytoridectomy has been outlawed in virtually every country where Christianity became the majority. In India, the practice of suttee (the burning alive of widows), was ended as a result of the tireless efforts of the Baptist missionary, William Carey.

The fact is that Mr. De Waal is simply perpetuating myths concerning Christianity.

Dawkins apparently wrote that "atheists should not have to 'prove' God does not exist -- the
burden of proof should lie with those who believe in God, divine creation, and other dogmas derived from ancient scriptures." Why? As long as history has been written, man has been shown as a believer of some type of deity. In the grand scheme of things, that makes the atheists the heretics, being the dissenters from the longest held beliefs. This makes atheism the new kid on the block, and therefore, the burden of proof does lie with atheists and not those who do believe in deity.

Why is it that evolutionists always claim that they have this vast body of evidence which prove their theory? Far from the truth. Evolutionism is "theology" just as much as Intelligent Design Theory is a "theology." Both attempt to answer the question: Where do we come from? Both of these have the same facts, yet, it is the interpretation that separates the two. It is not as if evolutionists have a certain set of facts that prove their theory! The same facts are known by both camps. The evolutionists have certain
presuppositions that cause them to interpret the facts the way they do, and IDT has certain presuppositions that cause them to interpret the facts the way they do. The evidence that evolutionists like to claim for themselves is simply their own interpretation of the shared body of facts.

Christianity is not against scientific inquiry as De Waal posits. Quite the contrary. Wherever IDT has tried to get into schools, especially in the U.S., the believers in Evolutionary Theory (ET) balked the most to keep it out. Where are the open minds? IDT made it clear that they
wanted equal time in schools, not the only time (another myth).

Finally, De Waal writes,
"Voltaire said that to make a man commit atrocities, you must first make him believe absurdities."

I agree wholeheartedly with what Voltaire said here. We can see what happened when ET
took over in governments and schools. ET led to the killing of more than 100 million people in the 20th century alone, plus the murder of more than 40 million babies in the wombs of their mothers in the U.S. since 1973 and more than 500,000 in South Africa since 1996. Just as Clr. AnneMarie Sparg, ACDP Councillor in the Tshwane Metro Council says, more babies are killed each year than people are murdered in South Africa. What a tale to tell about evolution and atheism!

That, is what society becomes without God!

Read More......

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Nuclear Iran

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Read More......

Thursday, May 17, 2007

ACDP response to conflict in Darfur

I came upon this today, written by Jo-Ann Downs, the Deputy President of the ACDP.

Her letter to the editor gives some insights into the problems in Sudan, especially in the Darfur region.

The title of the letter is, ACDP respond to the "Fourth Anniversary" of the Conflict in Darfur.

Read More......

The slippery slope of the 'Pro-Choice' mantra

In the area of abortion, where people murder babies daily, it truly seems that pro-choicers are now completing their "evolution" to becoming zombies. They are now becoming the living dead! Living bodies without soul, without heart. The result of this zombification is a people who would murder their own children for any reason whatsoever! Or, for no reason at all!

Read Dr. Al Mohler's commentary on the abortion industry and the use of technology called Sliding Fast Down the Slippery Slope.

Read More......

e.tv Prefers being offensive to Christians

e.tv, the free-to-air TV channel in South Africa, aired the film ,THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, on 7 May 2007 at about 23:00. I, and several people I know (and I am sure many others that I do not know) complained to e.tv and the BCCSA (Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa) before this date concerning the repulsive, objectionable and offensive nature of this film.

It turns out that the BCCSA has no teeth before any screening of any material whatsoever, and can only process complaints after such a screening. e.tv did send out a statement
on the day of the screening to all those who complained about the airing of this film. Unfortunately I was in West Africa at the time on business and could not reply.

Well, I finally replied to them last night. Below, you can first read the statement from e.tv and then my reply to them.



e.tv STATEMENT ON THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST

e.tv takes serious account of the opinions of its viewers. While e.tv has no intention to offend any viewer in screening the Last Temptation of Christ, we believe that we have a responsibility as a television channel, to air different views and opinions.

e.tv subscribes to a Code of Conduct which requires us to provide adequate viewer information concerning programmes which may offend certain viewers. As we are conscious that some viewers may be offended by this film, we took a decision to schedule it well after 10pm accompanied by appropriate warnings.

The Last Temptation of Christ does not set out to offend. It is a serious film which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Director (Martin Scorsese) in 1989 and has received widespread critical acclaim.

In response to a complaint about the airing of the film on Canadian television, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council expressed the following views in 1996:

“It is the view of the Council that … the film was [not] in any way abusive or discriminatory toward Christians or Christianity. The quest of both the book and the film is inquiring, probing, and uncertain as to its conclusions. That it may not be the representation of the perspective or understanding of all or even many Christians regarding Christ is possible. That fact does not, however, make the perspective abusive, discriminatory or hateful. The Council considers that the film was intended primarily to explore the question of moral doubt and that it has accomplished this very effectively, even if it has not solved the religious mystery of the substance of Christ.”

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council dismissed the complaint about the airing of the film.

Considering all the circumstances, e.tv believes that its decision to broadcast The Last Temptation of Christ late on a Monday night is consistent with its mandate as a free-to-air television broadcaster and with the South African Bill of Rights.

Statement issued by e.tv: 7 May 2007



Here is the reply I emailed them:

Thank you for the reply you sent concerning the screening of THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST on 7 May 2007.

I acknowledge that e.tv has this standard viewpoint concerning movies, or any fair screened by e.tv. However, I disagree significantly from that standpoint.

I agree that you have a responsibility to air differing views and opinions. However, when those views and opinions have been debunked by all serious historians as utter, unsubstantiated rubbish, then it is no longer a view or opinion, but an agenda and propaganda. The life and times of Jesus Christ is well attested to in history, and the blatant lies of this film is not simply propaganda, but an attempt to alter history in the minds of its viewers. We all know that it is all in vogue these days to put a personal spin on historic events to suit those propagating their own propaganda, yet, it remains wrong and ethically deplorable to continue such propaganda, or to support the same!

As is the same with other TV channels in South Africa you subscribe to a Code of Conduct, but instead of following the "spirit" of this Code you simply follow the "letter" of the Code. If you wanted to avoid offending viewers, perhaps you have succeeded by airing the film so late at night. Yet, all you have achieved in such a scenario is not to offend the Christians of this country to their faces, but behind their backs! That is no accomplishment at all!

What you have accomplished, however, was to spread a bunch of lies late at night instead of earlier. Does the time of day really make a difference as to when you may become offensive? But, then of course, evil does hide in the dark! In any country with any sanity left at all, evil remains evil no matter what time of day it is! Murder remains murder whether it is 13:00 or 01:00. The same goes for rape. Why would it be any different when it comes to offending Christians?

The airing of this movie helped spreading damnable lies about Jesus Christ to people living in an age when historical facts no longer count and when people no longer verify what they see in books and on TV. As a result, the propagation of this material implanted people's minds with such lies parading as truth.

The statement by e.tv opines that this movie does not set out to offend. Really? It may not offend about 20% of the people of this country, those according to Statistics South Africa who are not Christians! However, it certainly is offensive to the other 80%!

The fact is, and I state it categorically, e.tv knew beforehand that this film would offend millions in this country, yet they went ahead and aired it anyhow. Yes, you have a responsibility as a TV channel, yet, you refuse to be accountable to those you so constantly offend!

Of course, another ploy used by TV channels such as yours is to use name dropping. Martin Scorcese, Academy Award, "widespread critical acclaim." Does that really make it right? Does good acting, good direction in a movie make right the evil committed by such a movie? It is like saying, "the devil made me do it!" It still does not make it right nor does it exonerate the movie from being called for its deplorable propagandistic lies! Apart from this, it is pure blasphemy!

It really amuses me that you fall back onto the "witness" of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). It is like one Mafioso calling another Mafioso as a character witness! Really amusing!

This movie is so obviously made to offend, no matter what the CBSC said or what types of acclaim the movie received. Being praised by the devil is no praise at all!

Although the Bill of Rights give freedom of views and opinions to all South Africans, I personally think it is time that the media in this country stop hiding behind that section of the Bill of Rights and rather start thinking about their responsibilities in this country.

Freedom of speech without accompanying responsibility and accountability simply leads to speech anarchy--speech without form or meaning!

I really hope that e.tv would change its stance concerning such films as THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST!

Perhaps this email will not change your mind. That would be a pity. Perhaps your advertisers would listen?

Regards,


Of course, my next step would be to lodge a complaint with the BCCSA.

Read More......

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Zuma an honourary pastor!

Pastor Zuma?I sometimes wonder what people are thinking when they do what they do. Even more so in this case of Zuma being ordained as an "honourary" pastor!

In this case, Bishop Ben Mthethwa of the Independent Charismatic Churches, "ordained" Zuma a priest in his movement according to the IOL link above. According to the Sowetan, it was Pastor Vusi Khoza who conferred the honour.

I mean, get real! What was Mthethwa thinking?


How anybody in his right mind could even entertain the thought of "ordaining" Zuma as an honourary pastor/priest is completely beyond me. This is bestowing an honour on Zuma he is not deserving of! Zuma's lifestyle goes against almost everything Christianity stands for.

It seems to me that Mthethwa is looking for browny points with a man who may or may not be South Africa's next Prez! Of course, employing this shrewd move will obviously not escape the notice of all those ardent Zuma supporters.

In their abject ignorance they said, "We stick by our decision to honour Zuma. He will continue to carry the mandate of Jesus Christ for us." What mandate would that be? A mandate for adultery and corruption? Zuma is a man without a moral compass. Or, at least, if he has one, it has no "N" on it! It just seems to me that he is weak on morals. How then, can such a man be "ordained" an "honourary" pastor?

How can men like Mthethwa and Khoza be seen as men of God when they so easily violate the very Scriptures they claim to adhere to?

The Bible makes it very clear who may or may not be pastors in the church. Zuma does not do so well when graded against this criteria. Further, Zuma has shown no evidence of a life of following Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church!

If anyone wants to support Zuma politically, then do so politically. Do not commit sacrilege in the process by defiling an office of the church.

Lastly, I have made my thoughts about the ANC abundantly clear, and think that these pastors of the independent charismatic churches are in grave error on this subject!

Read More......

Thursday, May 10, 2007

When big business see only $ signs!

Superstars can do what they like. They can even be obnoxiously arrogant, living depraved lives that are completely devoid of morals; they can be the biggest blot to humanity on this planet, yet, if it can bring in the $$$, then some corporations (big business) will go out of their way to promote such scandalous people!

They will go as far as sponsoring the evil perpetrated by such degenerate, decadent, immoral, barbaric people and their so-called shows that are driven by greed, illicit sex and the promotion of despicable acts on stage that can can only be described as a simulation of "rape!"

"Hip-hop superstar Akon is touring the U.S. with the help of major U.S. corporations, including a partnership with Verizon, despite being under investigation for a simulated rape of a 14-year-old preacher's daughter caught on video last month at a concert in Trinidad.

"Patrick Manning, prime minister of Trinidad, called for a formal investigation of the explicit April 12 performance at Trinidad's Club Zen, which has since been closed by authorities."
Read Big corporations help 'rape rapper' tour U.S. to conclude this story...

Read More......

Friday, May 04, 2007

Greg Koukl on Christian political passivity

I have been involved in politics now for just over a year. The longer I am involved in politics, the more I realize that there are more Christians needed in politics. And, I do not mean just any Christian! My call is for Christians that have a solid grasp on historic Biblical orthodox theology.

A non-theological Christian (which is an impossibility, but I am sure you get my drift), will definitely not make a good Christian politician. Such Christians have the idea that a verse from the Bible on its own can say its own thing, without being connected to its context. False doctrine, even heresy, is born in such conditions. This is not what we want in politics.

Greg Koukl, wrote an article called "Political Passivity—Vice or Christian Virtue?" In it he writes:

"It’s not only the left that sounds the alarm when Christians “jeopardize the separation of church and state” by engaging in political action. Some Christians object, too. One evangelical leader offered this stern warning: “There should not be even a hint of anything political in our public discourse.”

"This may sound spiritual in some circles, but it can be devastating to the public good. Without question the Gospel has supernatural power to change lives, and those changed lives can change the world. William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, and Mother Teresa come immediately to mind.

"Some Christians wrongly conclude, however, that political involvement is therefore a waste of time. This is a mistake. The Gospel is never communicated in a political or cultural vacuum."
Read more...

Read More......

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Blame the "racist" videographer!

Why is it that when our national government ministers and their provincial counterparts get caught breaking the law, they almost invariably blame the previous "racist" government or some other "racist?"

Bheki Cele, the Transport Minister for Kwazulu-Natal, instead of taking responsibility for his own actions, heaped blame on a "racist" motorist for filming the Transport Minister's speeding convoy.

Instead of travelling the legal speed on the road they were using, the convoy was speeding at 160Km/h (100mi/h) which is 40Km/h faster than our highest speed limit in South Africa.

Using smokescreens and mirrors, the minister pointed at the motorist who broke the law by using his cellphone in filming the speeding event while driving himself. Of course the motorist was breaking the law by "using" his cellphone (without a hands-free kit) while driving. However, this does not detract from the fact that the minister himself was speeding.

Cele claims that the National Road Traffic Act (No. 93 of 1996) exempts him from keeping the speed limit, since the law "exempts the police, traffic officers and defence-force members from speeding with blue lights." He continued to explain that this includes the police VIP protection unit while driving ministers around in the execution of their duties.

I decided to have a look at the
National Road Traffic Act (No. 93 of 1996) myself to see what it has to say on this matter.

All I can say about this is that Bheki Cele read what he wanted to read in this law. It gives him as a minister no exemption concerning the law on speeding.

Section 60, which speaks to the issue of exemption from speeding laws has this to say:

"60. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 59, the driver of a fire-fighting vehicle, a rescue vehicle or an ambulance who drives such vehicle in the carrying out of his or her duties, a traffic officer who drives a vehicle in the carrying out of his or her duties or any person driving a vehicle while engaged in civil protection as contemplated in an ordinance made in terms of section 3 of the Civil Protection Act, 1977 (Act No. 67 of 1977), may exceed the applicable general speed limit: Provided that-

"(a) he or she shall drive the vehicle concerned with due regard to the safety of other traffic; and

"(b) in the case of any such fire-fighting vehicle, rescue vehicle, ambulance of vehicle driven by a person while he or she is so engaged in civil protection, such vehicle shall be fitted with a device capable of emitting a prescribed sound and with an identification lamp, as prescribed, and such device shall be so sounded and such lamp shall be in operation while the vehicle is driven in excess of the applicable general speed limit."

As can be clearly seen, only persons driving fire-fighting vehicles, rescue vehicles, ambulances, traffic vehicles or any person "driving a vehicle while engaged in civil protection" may exceed the speed limit.

Thus, the only reason a person may speed is "
in the case of any such fire-fighting vehicle, rescue vehicle, ambulance of vehicle driven by a person while he or she is so engaged in civil protection."

Therefore, Bheki Cele is guilty as charged and should be given the same legal penalty that would be afforded to any other South African citizen! He, and his convoy broke the law and should be punished accordingly.

The fact is that he was not engaged in civil protection at the time of the speeding violation.

Will he be held accountable for this speeding violation? Don't hold your breath!

Read More......

Piper on abortion

John Piper, classified as the king of Protestant social theology wrote an amazing review of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in upholding the ban on partial birth abortion.

Quoting from Piper's first paragraph, "Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court in upholding the ban on partial birth abortions on April 18, 2007. It is astonishing to read the opinion (PDF). The detail with which abortion is discussed exceeded my expectation. Kennedy’s own descriptions of the various forms of abortion are explicit and extensive. Descriptions of the procedure of partial birth abortion ('intact dilation and extraction') are given from both doctors’ and nurses’ perspectives."

Piper has said much more on the topic of abortion and can be read or listened to here.

HT: Centurion.

Read More......
Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin