Been crazy here lately, hence the lack of posts. I’ve just launched a new project: Naked City Guide. Will tell you more about it after Christmas.

In the meantime, have a happy holiday, and don’t forget what Christmas is all about:

Advent Conspiracy: http://www.adventconspiracy.org/

[If you cannot see the embedded video, click here to view it]

To follow up from what seemed to be a very popular series on dating, check out this video by Perry Noble from NewSpring Church in South Carolina.

[If you cannot see the embedded video, click here to view it]

4 years ago Friday, on 11 December 2005, Cronulla rioted. I had 2 cents to contribute and sent my article to some newspapers to be published, but to no avail. So, in light of the anniversary of the riots, I am going to share with you what I wrote in reflection of the events…

December 11 is a date Australia wants to forget.

The Cronulla riots of December 11, 2005 made international headlines and sent shock waves throughout the nation. The riots undoubtedly left a scar on the face of Australia’s international reputation.

Australians nationwide echoed the voice of the media describing the riots as “disgraceful,” “embarrassing” and worst of all “un-Australian.”

But is Australia really an intolerant society? Our great nation is regarded as one of the most multicultural in the world and as diverse as our land, so are the faces of its people. Our sunburned country draws people from all corners of the globe who come and bask in our free and pluralist society.

What was witnessed in the initial hours of the gathering at Cronulla beach last year was a peaceful protest which represented the boiling point of tensions between Cronulla locals and Sydney’s western suburb residents.

As we watched on our TV screens emotions were mixed. Some felt a sense of national pride as we witnessed our young Australians draped in the Aussie flag chant our national anthem and Australian ballads.

Moods changed as images of violence and rage hit our living rooms. It escalated from what was intended as a peaceful protest into an ugly riot.

So what fuelled the violence? Was it turf-warfare? Did it have to do with revenge, religion or racism? Was it the expression of a less tolerant Australia driven by a terrorism-focused media? Can we blame the media build-up or the text message frenzy that called upon locals to reclaim their beach?

What is likely to be agreed upon is the fact that the issues that brought 5000 young people to Cronulla beach that day in November were nothing shy of complex.

So what have we learnt after the riots? What’s important to recognise is the role binge drinking plays in violent and destructive behaviour among Australian youth.

As the schoolies week celebrations have come to a close, Gold Coast residents are reminded of the types of violent and destructive behaviour induced by acute intoxication (drunkenness).

Acting Gold Coast District Superintendent Jim Keogh said that over the 10 day period, there were 128 schoolies arrested and 361 non-schoolies arrested on 529 charges including violent behaviour.

Not drinking in unlicensed public places like the mall, street and beach was a message many did not listen to. This resulted in 636 schoolies and 642 non-schoolies issued with liquor SETONS over the 10 days.

He said the levels of intoxication of Schoolies in some cases were extreme and criticised parents for supplying their children with alcoholic drinks.

The Drug and Alcohol Review reported high alcohol consumption for Schoolies Week in Queensland with 75% of males and 60% of females reporting being drunk either every day or night of the week.

NSW Police Commissioner, Ken Moroney, agreed that alcohol had fuelled Cronulla’s beachside confrontation. “It was a big issue,” Mr Moroney said. The local Area Commander had told him the main troublemakers were well intoxicated by lunchtime.

According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 36% of all domestic assaults recorded by police in 2005 were alcohol-related. On the first of January 2005, however, more than half the domestic violence incidents recorded by police were alcohol-related.

The Australian Government’s National Health and Medical Research Council claim that people under 25 years of age have the riskiest drinking patterns. The National Drug Research Institute also report that 23% of 14-17 year olds and 45% of 18-24 year olds are drinking at harmful levels at least once a month.

Whether the violence would have escalated if the vast majority of the protestors at Cronulla beach were not under the influence of alcohol is still a matter of debate.

However, evidence suggests an undeniable link between excessive alcohol consumption and violent behaviour. This leaves us with one final question to ask.

Does Australia have a race problem, or do we have a drinking problem?

I don’t swear. Never really have. Sure, back in high school I dropped the occasional f-bomb and assorted profanities, but these days you’d never hear anything like that spring from my civilized lexicon. Why? Well, for one, I was raised in an environment of sensible discourse where the profane was reproached. Second, it repulses me. Third, because of a clear biblical mandate not to. The first two are relatively self-explanatory and will be touched upon, the third, for most, not so much. So, allow me to expatiate. I’m a Christian. This means I believe the bible makes sense. Not purely because it was God-inspired, although that’s true, but because it works. The words and deliberations of God weren’t some arbitrarily defined law for law’s sake. This would be senseless, aimless ascendency.

Here’s the thing. They aren’t rules, they’re answers. I’ve never followed a biblical instruction and walked away feeling like I had made a bad decision. You see, true freedom is not liberty from God’s law, but liberty in God’s law. God promises not bondage, but life in all its fullness, which means that within the law we find the fulfillment of God’s ultimate purpose: love. True freedom is not simply the ability to choose, but the power (by virtue of the Holy Spirit) to keep God’s commands and be free from the bondage of pain and suffering caused by the distortion and perversion of what was intended for an edifying and honourable purpose. So lets explore that within the context of language.

Some people disagree on my stance towards the F-Word. I’ve been accused from time to time of being what some would refer to as too “black and white.” There’s right, and there’s wrong. The grey area doesn’t exist. As much as I’d like to defend those accusations, I’d have to admit that I’m guilty of such logic every so often. When it comes to swearing, people seem to drown in a sea of grey. Here are the problems that present themselves: What is offensive language? Who decides what is and isn’t swearing? Also, is it not the intention rather than the word that matters?

Those who are a little more liberal when it comes to the use of potentially offensive language, make two key arguments. Firstly, that cuss words are not clearly defined and are in a constant state of flux. The meaning of words are socially constructed, so what was considered offensive 20 years ago is now a more commonly acceptable colloquialism and vice versa. Second, that it is the intention behind the use of the word and not the word itself that is offensive, which according to this logic, subsequently makes the use of euphemisms such as crap or dang just as offensive as s#%t or f@$k.

Lets deal with the first contention. True, words change over time, so it’s hard to clearly define a cuss word. In addition, some words are considered offensive by others, and some not. So what is a cuss word? Is it not just an arbitrarily defined word that culture deems offensive at a particular point in history? Firstly, if any word by nature, according to its technical definition, is offensive, then its taboo. Sl*t for instance, is a perfect example.

We are however, left with the problem of the use of words whose technical definition is not, by nature, offensive, but is considered by culture or society to be offensive, e.g. F*ck. Words like these, whose literal definitions are far removed from their cultural definitions are red herrings. Just because culture defines them as offensive, doesn’t mean they are. Culture defines a lot of things in ways that stand opposed to my values, and I don’t for a second accept all those particular definitions.

This leads onto the second contention, the concept of motive. This is where it gets interesting. For some people, its never about the word, its always about the intention and emotion behind the use of it. I agree, but only to a certain extent. The biblical instruction on cuss words is all about the intention of the heart. It’s not about correcting your language, it’s about changing your character. Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. The verses therefore deal with the idea that God works from the inside out to change and transform you.

The biblical instruction therefore is not so much about the words themselves, but the emotion through which the words are expressed. Again, this is all about love. Love is always doing what is in the best interests of the other. It is about conforming yourself to the image of Christ, about a selfless sacrifice of love to our neighbour, and in that you find great joy. So, am I saying that you can say any word as long as it is with the right heart motive? No. This is the point of disagreement with this side. Why? Because, back to the first contention, some people simply find certain words offensive, which means it would not be an act of love to use such language in the presence of others.

So, whether or not it is justified to be offended by a word whose definition is not technically offensive, is completely beside the point. The point is, if someone is offended by it, don’t do it (within reason of course). This is love. This is where the transformation of the heart takes place. This is the intent of the scriptures. It is always about the process of moulding you into a kinder, more selfless, more considerate, more humble you, and for that to become manifest in your speech.

What about euphemisms such as crap or dang? Well, it doesn’t really matter if you say “flower”, if it is an expression of unjustified anger or callous emotional outrage, then it’s the same unhealthy motive, albeit without the offensive word. Just a side-note, anger is not always bad, for instance, “righteous indignation” is fine, it is an energetic and passionate motivator. Jesus got angry at injustice, and so can we. All this brings me back to my original point: the biblical instruction makes sense. Instead of offending others, you are learning to respect them with words that are uplifting and edifying rather than offensive and destructive. In the process, your character is transformed.

Everything aside. When a member of the opposite sex drops an f-bomb, I can think of very few things that are bigger turn offs. Words are beautiful. The spoken word is the avenue through which our thoughts become articulated, the instrument through which we can coherently and eloquently enunciate and postulate the deepest recesses of our imagination. Why cheapen and pervert such a beautiful language with vulgar vernacular and crude colloquialisms?

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen starts tomorrow. From December 7-18, more than 15,000 people including Government officials and advisers from 192 nations, civil society and the media from nearly every country in the world, will come together in the Danish capital, Copenhagen in one of the most significant gatherings in history. It is being called the most complex and vital agreement the world has ever seen.

To find out more about the conference, check out TckTckTck.org, a hub for mobilizing civil society support for an historic agreement on climate change and providing information to the public. http://tcktcktck.org/

Also, check out the official site of the United Nations Climate Change Conference: COP15 Copenhagen: http://en.cop15.dk/

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.” – Harry S. Truman

Date: Sunday, December 13, 2009
Time: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: Newlife, 4 Greenwich Court, Robina
Cost: $5

On Sunday night of December 13 at 6.00pm Newlife will be screening the Rockumentary: CALL+RESPONSE. The Gold Coast Cinemas have refused to show this film, so its up to us to make this happen and get this cause out there.

CALL+RESPONSE is a first of its kind film that reveals the world’s 27 million dirtiest secrets: there are more slaves today than ever before in human history. They go deep undercover where slavery is thriving from the child brothels of Cambodia to the slave brick kilns of rural India to reveal that in 2007, Slave Traders made more money than Google, Nike and Starbucks combined!

The cost of a ticket which can be pre-booked or bought on the door is $5.00, and Newlife will be paying the extra 50 cents, which will cover the viewing and licensing rights. No money will be made from the event but we would love to invite you and your groups, friends or family to join us in responding to one of the greatest injustices of our generation!

You’ve heard the call, now respond!

For film information and trailers log onto: http://www.callandresponse.com.au/

For more information about the screening email: info[at]theproject.org.au