Rear View Girls...

Now that it has been done, one is left wondering why it had never been done before.

Rear View Girls - Los Angeles is a video that two New Zealanders who are living in LA put together. The video has gone viral on YouTube and I post it here for ease of access. However, I encourage you to go visit them on YouTube and watch it there. So, far almost 1.2 million others have made the trip.



To be honest, I am not sure how they rigged the camera, but it is pretty clear from the shots in the video that most of the guys had no idea what was going on. Neither did the women who were caught holding that lingering glance a little too long.

Oh, the video. right. The basic premise was that men ogle the bums of women whenever given the opportunity to do so. It does not matter whether they are single or partnered, wearing a suit and tie or board shorts and riding a skateboard. The two young women, Jessie Gurunathan and Reanin Johannink (interesting names as well), who made this film were of the belief that if given the opportunity to look, then men would not be able to help themselves but to look.

The most humourous one must be the one where Jesus gets caught taking a sneak peak and then stealing a second glance as well. Go Jesus! I guess it has been a while since he had the opportunity to ogle Mary Magdalene...but I digress!

The outcomes of that belief are pretty self-evident on the video.

Enjoy.

Jesus: Wine-Guzzling Vagrant and Precocious Socialist?

Jesus Christ is a "wine-guzzling vagrant precocious socialist"!

Is this one of those things where your first reaction is to smile and have a little chuckle to yourself while thinking "hmmm, this is certainly going to ruffle a few feathers!"?

Perhaps the more pertinent question is "would this insult on Jesus be enough for you to pull your child out of school?" In the US state of New Hampshire, it is and was. Aimee Taylor pulled her son, Jordan Henderson, out of school because he was assigned 'Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America' by his teacher at Bedford High School.

The book was assigned in a class on personal finances. This seems like a pretty good choice considering the book is a first-hand account of how the author, Barbara Ehrenreich, tries to get through life working on the minimum wage. The book is one that seems appropriate for the American context. It would not work in the Australian context nearly as well seeing the concept of minimum wage in Australia is one where an award is set and this is generally significantly higher in comparison to that of the US.

The story seems "tailor-made for Fox News Channel", no pun intended. Fox enjoys the opportunity to "bang on" and bash anything that does not fall within the strict parameters of conservative politics. A school assigning this book to a 16-year-old student is sure to be indicative of a declining America. Ho hum...

To be sure, this is not a book review. I have not read the book. I might look for it next time I am at the book store. This post is merely commentary on the value of "banning" books. There are reasons for reading books that we might find to be "junk" or even offensive. There is nothing stopping this young man writing critically about the content and exploring how the author got it so wrong or how the use of the "offensive" does not add to the tome in any substantial or significant manner.

For all I know, the book may be total crap. Yet, the point was one of critical literacy and to encourage students to explore points of view, even offensive ones, as a means of increasing there awareness of issues and allow them to cast a critical eye over the views of others. This is not a bad thing. I encourage my students to be critical, and critically aware as this allows them to bring their own prior knowledge and experiences into the overall learning experience. Once again, this is not a bad thing.

Admittedly, I am a little green to the world of organised education where there are departmental policies to be considered and followed. That said, it would seem that the relevant school authorities were clued in on this book choice.

In the end, criticism of the American Dream is not something that is out of bounds, is it?

If you are interested, then Amazon has a copy or two.

The Pope Sees the Light...

Pope Benedict XVI has seen the light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not Jesus. The Pope, God bless his soul, has finally worked out that abstinence, although the best solution, is not a reality that the Catholic Church can make happen. Well, not unless they start forcibly restraining unmarried or un-partnered couples.

Condoms, particularly the use of them, are not a 100% effective way of preventing the spread of STD or STI. However, they do significantly better than the option of taking a shower without a raincoat. In any event, the Pope's support is not blanket support for the idea that the Catholic Church facilitate a program of condom distribution through its parishes.

The Pope's support suggests that prostitutes, and in particular male prostitutes,would be beginning to act responsibly if they were to start using condoms. I might have to go out and get the book from which the Pope's comments are sourced: Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times. And, the news story that I pilfered for this piece was quoting from excerpts that were published in The Vatican rag, L’Osservatore Romano.

The Catholic Church has adopted a position that is anti-condom use. It has maintained this position in the face of some intense and harsh criticism. So, is this statement by the Pope indicative of a softening in the position of the Catholic Church? No, it is not. The Pope was very explicit in restricting his comments to a very narrow range of condom use. His choice of male prostitutes was undoubtedly a conscious one that was sort to deflect any concerns about condoms being used as a contraceptive device. The position of the Catholic Church with respect to the use of condoms as a form of contraception remains unchanged.

Yet, when it is all said and done, there is an argument to be made that this may in fact be a first step in recognising that the issue of HIV / AIDS and other sexually transmitted disease and infection is an issue that transcends simple arguments of morality. It is an issue that has and will continue to be a measure of the times in which we live, particularly if you live in Africa or Asia.

Progress is progress even if it is in small and scripted steps.

"Scandalous" Advertising...

This could be an interesting debate, "What constitutes scandalous advertising, and should it be banned?"

Some of the names that have been approved as trade marks recently include: Knut clothing (Kunt clothing was rejected -- wonder why? Reminds me of FCUK), Hot Cock foods, Porn Star clothing, and as the picture above shows, Cocaine, which has been approved for some time as I recall.

Funnily enough, the Trade Marks Registrar would not approve religious related words as trade marks. So, words like: Jesus, Mecca, and Hallelujah did not make the cut. I wonder if Muhammad could be trade marked?

What constitutes scandalous and what scandalizes is going to very from person to person. Scandalous is clearly subjective and therefore who should be responsible for determining what is likely to scandalize us or offend us.

I am not sure that I am into eating Hot Cock foods or wearing Porn Star clothes (last time I checked porn stars tended not to wear a whole lot of clothes). Yet, I am also not scandalized by the names being trade marked or if others decide to purchase the products on offer.

Interesting times we live in.

Facebook, Social Networking, Friend Requests, and Jesus...

I wonder if Bill Gates would ignore this one?

It is good to see a creative sense of humor.

God is Love -- Jesus Supports the Use of Condoms

I fully expect to offend people with the picture that leads off this post. I do not apologize for the message of this piece. Thanks to the Freethinker for illuminating this controversy for me here and here.

Sexually transmitted diseases of all types are slowly but surely decimating our collective future. The idea that abstinence is the answer has proven to be clearly not the case. The need here is to ensure that people are fully educated and therefore able to make informed decisions on their own. If abstinence happens to be that choice, then all well and good. However, if the choice is a different one, then at least those individuals will have at their disposal the knowledge that may just save their lives.

The art work is by Ben Heine, a Belgian, and was in direct response to the statements of the Pope and his fellow clergy members who seem to believe that it says somewhere in the Bible that condom use is strictly prohibited and that the use of condoms actually makes the HIV / AIDS tragedy in places like Africa even worse. The art work was posted on a site called DeviantArt. Unfortunately, DeviantArt in their infinite wisdom deemed the work too offensive or controversial or something because they removed it, and then ultimately banned Heine from the site.

I fully support the right of websites to determine their own content. However, a quick look around the DeviantArt site turns up quite a lot of art that would best be described as pornographic and perhaps even offensive to some, not to me though. So, why single out this piece of art for censorship? Come to think of it, I am not offended by Jesus wearing a condom or the idea that the Christian God is a God of Love and would be cool with a pro-condom message. This is not because it encourages promiscuity but to the contrary because it saves souls from agonizing and pointless deaths.

The right to freely express one's ideas is a core tenet of my philosophy on life. I have not and do not advocate that there are no limits to free speech, in fact quite to the contrary. However, sometimes free speech sometimes offends, and causing offense does not necessarily mean that it has crossed that uncrossable line in the sand where it is no longer protected. My personal opinion is that I can accept some people will be offended by the image, but I do not believe the image crosses the line.

Is it in bad taste? To each their own.

Jesus

Jesus is everywhere...and assuming you've had a pint or two, he might even end up in your glass!

It probably makes sense for Jesus to turn up in a beer glass since he was renowned for turning water into wine, among other things.

Blasphemy in Indonesia

Blasphemy is an issue that is always interesting to write about as the possibilities are endless, at least in terms of the hypotheticals - the what ifs? This is even more so the case in Indonesia where even the slightest hint of blasphemy leads to violence and the destruction of private property and the desecration of religious property in some instances, it is fair to say there is nothing funny about blasphemy in Indonesia.

Indonesia is still not at the point of trying, as Malaysia has, to ban the use of certain words and restrict their usage only to Muslims. Malaysia decided that "Allah" was a Muslim term to refer to God and because it was a Muslim term then no other religions had a right to refer to their God as Allah. I would guess that to do so would amount to blasphemy.

Nevertheless, Indonesians, at least in some instances, have voiced extreme opinions on the issue of apostasy. The demand is for death for all apostates. The issue has come to the fore yet again as the government is set to continue its pursuit, some might say persecution, of Lia Eden, the leader of a messianic cult, who by all accounts is as mad as a two bob watch, for blasphemy. The most recent arrest is hot on the heels of the arrest of a teacher for supposedly scorning the Prophet. For some background on the Eden cult you can go here, here, and here.

The teacher, Welhelmina Holle, sparked a violent protest that led to the burning of churches and homes on Seram Island in the Moluccas. It remains unclear exactly what she said but obviously for some it did not matter. The fact that the allegation was made was enough for some to set out on a violent protest.

The actual law on blasphemy was a Presidential Decree that was enacted into law in 1965 (No. 1/PNPS/1965) and the key elements have in essence been extracted and included in the current Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana / KUHP) as Article 156(a). The combination of these laws is designed to prevent "deviant interpretations" or any challenge to the long-standing norms particularly with respect to Islam, and to prevent any public discourse on religion by outlawing any utterances that can conceivably be deemed hostile or abusive or insulting of any particular religion.

This is problematic in a secular state as it gives the government or its appointed proxies the power to make subjective interpretations of what constitutes blasphemy or heresy. In many ways the power is a similar one to what has been seen before, as granted to the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisitions. For many this might be a difficult concept to digest. However, it is as simple as recognizing that there is not the same separation of Church and State or in this case Mosque and State that many of us from a Western democratic tradition would recognize.

Yet, there is some separation in Indonesia as the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) has the power to issue fatwas (edicts) on all things Islam but these fatwas are not legally binding. In that sense it is a toothless tiger whose growl is much bigger than its bite. Although, it is a brave government that aligns itself against the MUI as to do so would expose it to charges of being anti-Islam or not sensitive to Muslim issues and needs.

I guess the point of this little musing was that on a personal level I have a real problem with people being jailed for their non-violent religious beliefs no matter how crazy and left or right of mainstream they might be. For example, if a shaven-headed woman wants to claim that she is the Archangel Gabriel and people want to believe that and follow her then so be it. Similarly, if someone wants to claim that there was another prophet after Muhammad and there are people prepared to belief that then so be it.

I leave you with these random thoughts.

If God sends his only son, Jesus Christ, to earth to die for our sins, then doesn't this suggest that Jesus is the most likely candidate to have been the last prophet (at least until the second coming of Christ)? And, therefore, would it be blasphemy to suggest that God got it wrong by sending his only son and decided to have another go at getting it right by selecting some random fella, who in this case just happens to be a fella named Muhammad, to be his final prophet on earth and to bring Islam to the world?

Then, if it is to be accepted that Muhammad followed Jesus as a prophet, then why is it not possible that God could have had second or third thoughts and decided that another prophet was necessary in order to perfect any imperfections that may have arisen?

Would it be blasphemy to suggest that Buddha never really reached enlightenment by suggesting that the Buddha has been reincarnated for another stint back in the real world?

Oh well! As Uncle Ned once said, "such is life"!

Allah is Everywhere

Pareidolia is the phenomenon of seeing or perceiving something significant in something insignificant. While I was out surfing the Internet I came across this image that is posted with this entry, here. This is not some new psychological phenomenon and as such there are plenty of sites on the web that publish the images. You can find images here, here, and here.

Freedom of Speech Under Attack?

I am an advocate of free speech. I have never considered free speech to be an absolute right but rather one that is modified by defamation laws and protected by an ability to prove what one says.

However, it seems that this freedom of speech is slowly but surely being whittled away as vilification and hatred laws are introduced to the regulatory framework and discourse is restricted to agreed truths that cannot be questioned.

This is a direct attack on the freedom of speech! The cartoon is a statement about the Canadian Human Rights Commission system and it can be found here at the FreedomSite Blog.

I have always wondered for example why it was wrong to publish a cartoon of Muhammad, or more specifically how that was any more wrong than say publishing a cartoon of Jesus or Buddha or some other religious icon?

I have always wondered why there cannot be academic debate say on the holocaust or why saying that the numbers of Jews killed under the "Final Solution" might not have been six million. To my mind there is no doubting that Nazi Germany as led by Adolf Hitler adopted a policy known as the "final solution" and that the purpose was to rid Europe of the Jews.

Yet, I do not understand the fear of having to defend this position. If someone questions whether the gas chambers were capable of poisoning the number of people claimed, then they are labeled anti-Semitic and threatened with jail. Where is the free speech in that and who is protecting the rights of these people to exercise their right to free speech?

Or is it the case that when you want to talk about Muhammad or Israel or other things you can only do so within the "agreed" discourse and to stray from this very limited path makes you a criminal?

Whatever happened to the idea that I might disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.

How can we ever live in a truly functioning democracy if the narrative and the discourse is dictated by the few? Many vilification and hatred and denial laws are used purely for the purpose of stifling legitimate debate. And, this is a sad development and sets back our ability to live in peace and harmony with each other as these laws foster the ill-will and hatred that they seek to overcome.

It is time that we started behaving like adults rather than allowing our politicians to regulate us like we are children.

The freedom of speech must be a freedom to disagree, a freedom to challenge, and a freedom to question. Anything less makes a mockery of the freedom of speech as a legitimate human right.

Thus endeth the sermon!

Offensive?

The crucified frog is on display at the Bolzano Museum of Modern Art in Northern Italy and is by the late German artist Martin Kippenberger.

Terence Koh's "Jesus with a Hard-on" is being exhibited at the Baltic Gallery in Gateshead in the UK.

Both of these works of art are subject to claims that they are offensive. What do you think?

A Modern Day Crucifixion?

Just so everyone knows that I am equally offensive to all and play no favourites!

Resurrection -- A Christian Rip-Off?

"Gabriel's Revelation" is a 1 metre long tablet with ink writing that has been dated to the period just before Jesus was immaculately born into this world. The tablet is said to challenge the uniqueness of the Christian story of the resurrection and is also said to suggest that Jesus and his followers may have misappropriated an earlier version of the resurrection story to fulfill their own ends.

The tablet only has 87 lines and some think it to be part of the Dead Sea Scrolls and in some way associated with John the Baptist. However, it might not be as cut and dried as some might have us believe. The best part of the tablet is smudged and therefore requires some creative interpretation. This is what the believers need to say that those interpreting the tablet to say that Jesus and his disciples misappropriated the resurrection scenario from somewhere else have it wrong.

The smudged passage might say that "after three days in the grave the messiah will raise again". If this is true and the tablet has been accurately dated then it stands to reason that there was a resurrection story pre-dating the resurrection of Jesus. The question then is, was Jesus aware of the story and did he co-opt it for his own purposes? Then again who cares and does it make any difference to the accounts of the event laid out in the Gospels?

The critical line is the 80th line which begins with "In three days ..." and a little further on includes the verb "to live". It has been suggested that the passage refers to a Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed in 4BC by the Romans. The passage apparently reads in full that the angel Gabriel commands Simon to live again after three days.

The argument goes that it was the Christian texts that influenced the Jewish texts on the resurrection idea. However, this revelation would seem to suggest that the opposite is true; the Jewish texts influenced the Christian texts. It must be noted that Christian scholars do not accept this interpretation and this is hardly surprising considering what is at stake.

The tablet is owned by a Swiss-Israeli antiques collector named David Jeselsohn (pictured). I am certain that there will be more to this story in the future...

Human Rights, Freedom of Speech, and the Catholic Church

It would seem that not all Catholics are thrilled about the new annoyance laws put into place to "guarantee" that pilgrims are not annoyed or inconvenienced during the World Youth Day festivities.

Father Frank Brennan (pictured), who also happens to be a lawyer, feels that the new police powers are not only excessive but an interference of the civil liberties of people and in fact the new laws run contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Fr. Brennan cites the Pacem In Terris, the 1963 encyclical of Pope John, where it is clear that responsibility of all authorities was "to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person". Perhaps the NSW Government has interpreted this to mean the inviolable rights of the Catholic pilgrim.

However, the Catholic Church holds no such reservations. The Church has in fact indicated that it fully supports the laws and that it lobbied the government to ensure that the laws were enacted on the grounds that everyone wants WYD to be held in Sydney and that the people of Sydney, not only the pilgrims, were in favour of such measures because they want the event, which will be full of enthusiasm and joy, to run smoothly. I am not sure who the Catholic Church has been talking to on this.

Whether the laws are contrary to Catholic teachings is neither here nor there in that sense. I would have thought that pedophilia was contrary to Catholic teachings as well but it still happens. The laws are simply an affront to basic human rights that the majority of us take for granted but that the Catholic Church does not. In any event putting laws like this into place is like showing a red rag to a bull. Those groups that might not have been inclined to protest will now come out of the woodwork and protest on principle.

It is interesting that the organizers of the WYD and the Catholic Church want to have their cake and eat it too. An argument could be made that Jesus was the protester of his time. There were many in power who disagreed with his message and his teachings for which Jesus paid the ultimate price. The analogy drawn by Dr John Sweeney, the co-ordinator of research at the Edmund Rice Centre, says the following, "It would rather be like Jesus calling for a police escort on Palm Sunday. Obviously, he wouldn't and when Jesus went into Jerusalem people yelled out things the religious leaders in their time didn't like and they rebuked Jesus and he said he couldn't quieten his supporters."

This is a thought worth pondering. If Jesus really was about free speech and the right to preach his message then isn't it a little rich that the organizers want to curtail that very freedom for which Jesus died?

As you can see these increased police powers bother me.

Public Intoxication

Now here is a very disturbing story out of rural New South Wales.

A 9-year old boy and his two 14-year old friends were found roaming the streets of Albury (on the border between NSW and Victoria) at 01.00. The roaming the streets is not the disturbing part. The disturbing part is that they were blind drunk and the 9-year old was talking to Jesus on the porcelain telephone (Australian idiom for vomiting + there is a whole site devoted to the subject).

I am sure that there is more to the story than just the public intoxication and the puking of one's guts in the street. Yet, all the same, at 9 years old there is something definitely to be concerned with on this one.

The incident has been reported to the Department of Community Services.

FPI -- The Ahmadiyya Issue

My first post this month was about the FPI. So, it seems fitting that my 100th post this month return to what got the month started, the FPI.

Wednesday saw many thousands of Muslims demonstrating in front of the Presidential Palace demanding that the Government stop pretending to restrict Ahmadiyya and their practices but rather issue an absolute ban. The President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono or SBY as he is popularly known, has a problem!

The recently issued joint decision has done nothing to stem the rhetoric against Ahmadiyya by hard-line proponents of Islam who consider Ahmadiyya as a dangerous heretical sect that has the potential to undermine the "true" teachings of Islam. This is kind of like saying that the Mormons have the potential to undermine the true teachings of Jesus and the Christian God, rubbish!

Yet, this is the problem that SBY must face. And, for a President who currently relies on the support of minor Islamic influenced parties and for a man seeking re-election, he has some maneuvering to do in order to keep things pacing along as he would want them to.

The joint decision falls way short of a ban and to all intents and purposes probably does not even restrict the practice of the Ahmadiyya's take on their interpretations of Islam. The joint decision does prevent the Ahmadiyya's from proselytizing under the threat of 5 years prison but otherwise it is as weak a response as it seems that the Indonesian Ulemas Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia / MUI) would permit.

The plot thickens!

Sex & Controversy

This post is not going to be all that entertaining for you! Rather it is an update on my ongoing and individual research on what attracts traffic to my site.

So here is a little update on what my statistics are telling me:

The post on the Exploitation and Sexualization of Children, which features a picture of a 13-year old in a swimsuit, has been a really big driver of traffic to my blog (and it continues to be). What can I deduce from this -- ants to honey!

The other post that has done pretty well is the one that includes the homoerotic depiction of the Last Supper. I have some other more offensive pictures on file by the same artist including the one where the Roman soldier is providing Jesus with a good little fondle. Unfortunately, Jesus does not have a lot of say in the matter as he is nailed to the cross!

What have I learned my fellow bloggers...sex sells and it pays to be controversial!

I lie, I did not really learn that but it sounded good!

I already knew that and my stats now confirm this to be the case...

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

Is this a blatant attempt to attract site traffic, not really, I swear! I am reading this book and the title happens to be the same as the title to this post. Therefore, it could just be a plain old book review or it could be something else! You will have to read and see...

I am writing this in part as context to the recent Geert Wilders and Fitna controversy and the now defunct attempt to ban access to certain sites that were making the film available. The quick turnaround on this might bring the most cynical parts of us out that the whole banning thing was nothing more than a charade and lip service to appease some vocal dissent. Or it could have just been early electioneering in an attempt to ward off any future criticism of being a do nothing government!

However, the book does the same thing that Wilders has done; focus on particular passages or Suras of the Qur'an that highlight extremism or violence and place this into the context of history and historical occurrences from the origin of Islam through to the present day. Why is this interesting you might ask; this is interesting because I bought this book at the Kinokuniya Book Store in Plaza Senayan in Jakarta in Indonesia. The obvious question is that if the government is so sensitive to this issue and needs to protect the masses from material that is likely to disrupt social order and harmony on a global scale then how is it that I can buy this book in Indonesia?

The book compares passages from the Qur'an and the Bible as a means of highlighting the violence in Islam and the peace in Christianity. Undoubtedly, many would beg to differ on those characterizations. The book is not designed to be a tool to preach to the converted but rather a tool designed to sway those swing voters who are still out in terms of what they know and understand of religions.

One such comparison is this one:

Jesus (from Matthew 5:44) "Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you."

is contrasted with,

Muhammad (from Qur'an 8:60) "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, who ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Then the book uses other Suras to highlight Islam as a misogynist religion that not only devalues women but explicitly notes that women were created to be inferior to men and subservient to them...

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other" (Qur'an 4:34);

"Your women are a tilth for you to cultivate so go to your tilth as ye will" (Qur'an 2:223);

"Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (Qur'an 2:282);

Allah thus directs you as regards your children's inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (Qur'an 4:11); and

"Good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish than and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (Qur'an 4:34).

So, what's the point of this post; it is many-fold:

First, is it possible to have constructive, reasonable, and measured debate where religion is involved and views seem so diametrically opposed?

Second, why in light of the recent controversy surrounding Fitna can books such as this one be found in Indonesian book stores? I am not advocating censorship or a round of book burning, rather to the contrary I am asking where is the consistency here?

Finally, has the drive to political correctness made us more tolerant or has it just served to push the simmering tensions under the carpet as people are forced to be politically correct in public but mutter there less than political correct views in private and among friends.

By the way there is also a "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible" but when I asked the Kinokuniya staff member if they had a copy or whether I could order one she thought I was trying to be funny...oh well! The pictures above are as big as I could make them...

God and Hitler

It seems that God and Hitler are going to be disciplined after attending the same party. The wash-up to the Australian soccer season was a grand final ceremony / party to mark the end of the season.

One player of German extraction (born and raised in what is part of the former East Germany) saw fit to wear a costume that made him look like Hitler. There is no surprise here that someone complained (anyone remember Prince Harry wearing an SS uniform several years back?). There is little doubt that Hitler was a bad dude and was ultimately responsible for the perpetration of a Holocaust so it begs the question; when are people going to realize that getting dressed up as this bloke is going to get you into trouble?

On the God front -- it is not clear who complained but the offence it seems was to dress up as God and then blacken one's face. The news piece does not really go onto outline what the offence is with regards to dressing up as God. I am guessing it is not the white robes but rather the blackened face that offends, but assumptions are always dangerous! It is not like we know whether God has form and we know even less about the colour of the skin. The basic assumption seems to be that God is a man (after all if you are Christian you know that God created Jesus in his image!) and as Jesus is usually painted or drawn or characterized as being white then God must be white too! So, maybe the black face is the problem???

No need for a long and drawn out debate on this one about the origins and form of God or Jesus for that matter.

More updates to follow if there are any follow-up news pieces regarding the disciplinary process, I suppose.