It would be a little more funny if two people weren’t dead! Haha

In all seriousness, though, current drug-fighting strategies are not enjoying a whole lot of success. Illicit substances are still generating massive profits for their distributors, who are rarely caught and punished. More people than ever are using and/or addicted to them, and the social implications of drug abuse are increasingly significant. So, un-looney right-wing policies aren’t exactly working.

The Greens have long believed there is a different way to fight drugs, and while the proof is only ever in the pudding, it’s worth hearing them out. Sylvia Hale’s comments here, although perhaps poorly expressed, are consistent with the Green’s policy platform on drugs.

Of course it’s ridiculous to blame police for this girl’s stupidity, but Ms Hale’s point is that current strategies punish the little people (victims) more often than they dismantle trafficking.

I’m not a Green, and there are many Green policies I could never support. But I think they’re a lot less stupid than they are made to sound. Unfortunately sound-bites do little to convey the thinking behind their crazy ideas.

Oh, and since when did this blog become a right-wing political platform?

Missed the first line of the post and thought for a second you’d applied the thoughts from your previous post (Actually do it) in a whole new direction.
I guess this post points us to Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-22)

Hi All,

Just thought I might chip in here for a moment on Tony’s behalf. He’s one of the godliest guys I know and he isn’t about to go out and kill anyone. Furthermore, he’s as saddened as anyone by the death of Gemma Thoms.

But that doesn’t mean that there’s only one way to make an argument. Sometimes the best way to deal with folly is to laugh at it (Prov 26:5). The point is that no-one would take Bob Umbrage (and the name should give it away) seriously. His argument doesn’t work. But it’s exactly the same argument that Sylvia Hale is making.

I don’t think (although I haven’t spoken to him in any detail) that Tony was trying to get into a detailed argument about the difficulties of dealing with drugs. He is just making the point that every now and then, someone needs to point out when the emperor has no clothes.

Here’s to a barrage of further comments.

Grimmo.

I am unsure if Pauls first comment was directed at my comment or not (the paranoid part of me thinks it was)

The first part of my original comment was my attempt at “humour” in reply to his article (proving that I am no Cleese/Seinfeld/Gervais). I gathered his post was a humourous blog and that he didn’t intend to do anybody any harm (at least in this universe (attempt at humour, sorry)).

The reason I replied is that the posts on the Sola panel are very good and thought provoking. I realise that every panellist on the sola panel has more knowledge and insight into the Bible, ministry, God, Godliness, than I ever will. This is why I regularly read the blogs (in an attempt to learn more, plus attend church, read the bible, pray etc). Usually I don’t understand all the words, or the arguments but realise they are biblically based.

With regards the “Media to blame says angry middle aged man”, my second sentence was trying to see how the post fitted with “Bible-driven passion for theology, holiness and gospel ministry” and the other descriptions in the “About us” part of the site, because I have been able to see it/them in every other post. I figured that the point of the article wasn’t about drugs/drug control etc. I thought it may have been about anger/murder as mentioned in my comment. Maybe it was meant to point out that we shouldn’t allow other peoples actions to lead us into sin, or that we are responsible for our own actions. I dearly want the point of the article made clearer, because I have missed the point I am sure.

I certainly never meant to slur Tonys character, suggest he was capable of murder or was ungodly. If I have I apologise

Friends, my first thought was that maybe the situation would be helped by an even stronger warning upfront rather than the parallel universe thing (although I thought it was a giveaway). E.g. Warning: if you do not like satire, read no further!

However the wider issue than whether or not Tony’s attempt was any good - and I didn’t mind it and I thought it was obviously satire - is whether satire is ever an appropriate medium for Christians.

I think it hard to insist that one could never use satire and the related form of sarcasm, as we see examples in the Bible, although we may not want to claim status as prophet or apostle!

One place this was discussed extensively was around Doug Wilson’s book on the topic. Justin Taylor’s link here links to John Frame’s review of Doug Wilson’s book on satire and to Doug’s reply.

For those who think satire is acceptable, read Doug’s response to find a long list of checks and balances if you engage.

The funniest thing about Tony’s post is how pathetic he is when it comes to actually ever being angry. I’ve been here for nearly 6 years, and I’ve seen Tony get a bit annoyed a couple of times. With all due respect to my boss, when it comes to getting genuinely angry, Tony’s hopeless.

To be honest, I had compassion for that child and her family.

I too have hidden my sins from others.