Sexual Harassment

I do not condone sexual harassment of women or men, or, by women or men!

But what is sexual harassment? One organization defines sexual harassment as:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, or
Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Unwelcome Behavior is the critical word. Unwelcome does not mean “involuntary.” A victim may consent or agree to certain conduct and actively participate in it even though it is offensive and objectionable. Therefore, sexual conduct is unwelcome whenever the person subjected to it considers it unwelcome. Whether the person in fact welcomed a request for a date, sex-oriented comment, or joke depends on all the circumstances.

Source: Preventing Sexual Harassment (BNA Communications, Inc.) SDC IP .73 1992 manual.

I have no reason to disagree with that definition of sexual harassment except to suggest that, where it involves employees, coworkers and colleagues of the same rank or status, some element of repetition must be present.

That is, I would like to think that in those cases, the victim is expected to have informed or demonstrated to the offender, that his/her behavior is ‘unwelcomed’ and it only rises to the level of sexual harassment if he/she persists with the unwelcomed behavior.

Indeed, a man or woman who flirts, tells suggestive jokes or makes suggestive comments to any person without first having knowledge of how welcoming the person is to such jokes or comments is deserving of any and all accusations thrown in his/her directions. It is downright stupid to do such a thing.

When it comes on to touching, that is a no brainer! No man or woman should think it permissible to touch another without their consent. To do so leaves you open to allegations of sexual harassment, physical assault and being responsible for any number of psychological, social and emotional disorders the victim may suffer from the ‘trauma’of being touched against his/her will.

My challenge with sexual harassment, starts when it is taken to ridiculous extremes. For example, in some offices, organizations and places of work, one could be called up on a charge of sexual harassment for telling a female coworker that she is looking extra beautiful today!

Indeed, I recall reading a newspaper report out of England where a partner in a firm of barristers was reported for sexual harassment by a junior female associate for remarking how beautiful she looked.

The victim’s contention was the language was inappropriate and had no place in a professional environment.

I may not be progressive enough, but I must admit that, in the absence of additional information, I have a difficulty seeing how she was sexually harassed.

I am happy I don’t reside in the United Kingdom or other parts of Europe as chances are, I would be faced with a mountain of sexual harassment allegations for verbalizing my tasteful appreciation of the female form while simultaneously bellowing the first stanza of the hymn How Great Thou Art!

One can also be accused of sexual harassment based on how you look at another person. Dear Lord!

I propose to insulate myself from such accusations by having my gaze fixed firmly to the floor whenever I greet a member of the opposite sex (or is it gender?).

I suppose what I am trying to say is, while I fully agree with and support the need for sexual harassment legislation and policies, lawmakers and activists must be careful not to criminalize regular, harmless interactions between males and females.

Committed Christians and Legalization of Abortion

Hi I am back!

Please accept my apology for my one-week absence. My allergies were acting-up and I am not at my best when not feeling well.

I know at least one person missed me as she was not shy in letting me know she did.

There was a most interesting development in Jamaica’s ongoing abortion debate.

A group describing themselves as a ‘committed group of Christians’, came out in support of legalization of abortion up to twelve weeks of pregnancy.

This group, comprised of pastors and other church leaders, argue that, prior to 12 weeks, the unborn child is not developed enough to deserve protection under the law.

I was shocked that this position was held by a ‘committed group of Christians’ but I consoled myself with the confidence that, being ‘committed’ Christians, their position must surely be grounded in the infallible Word of God contained in the Holy Bible.

You can therefore imagine my embarrassment and disappointment when a representative of the group, an Anglican priest, at that, could not cite one scriptural reference in support of their position, when pressed to do so while appearing as a guest on a popular radio programme.

The Anglican priest cited philosophers, scientific views and human rights declarations but absolutely nothing from the source of all knowledge. Yes, nothing from the omniscient God!

I am no theologian but I was led to believe that Christians view the Bible as God’s manual for how His prized creation, man, is to function to achieve optimum performance.

It therefore stands to reason that Christians’ views on issues would be informed by what their manual has to say on the issues and if it does not speak specifically to the issues, they would infer what is ‘godly’ or ‘Christlike’ from general biblical principles.

Well this ‘committed group of Christians’ does not appear to trust their manual on the issue of abortion and when life begins.

My layman reading of Jeremiah 1:5 which reads, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born, I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” seems to suggest that God has a different view of conception and when life begins than this ‘committed group of Christians’.

The Anglican priest dismisses Jeremiah 1:5 as simply a statement of faith by the prophet and not an affirmation of the sanctity of life. Well he should know but what do you think?

I wonder what the reverend gentleman has to say about Psalm 139: 13-16 “For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful; I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.”

It is not my place to question any professed Christian’s commitment to Christianity, but I posit that positions held by Christians without biblical support are, at best, suspect.

I am reminded of the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:21-23

²¹“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²²Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and, in your name, perform many miracles?’ ²³Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Multi-Party Democracies

I am not a fan of multi-party democracies.

I describe multi-party democracies as democracies with two or more parties competing in elections to win a majority of electors’ votes and the right to form the government.

It is my observation that when two or more political parties compete for electoral power, more often than not, it is to the detriment of the best interests of the people.

Let’s face it, the main reason like-minded individuals form themselves into political parties is to compete for political power, to win elections and form governments to implement their ideology, ideas, policies and programmes.

This reason for the existence of political parties, makes it almost inevitable that parties will not cooperate and act in the best interest of the nation. Most, if not all political parties, will act in a manner that is most likely to win them control of the government at the expense of the rival party or parties.

In multi-party democracies, common characteristics of political parties are one-upmanship, outright lies, half-truths, tribalism, deception, personal attacks on one’s political opponents and just about anything to gain an advantage in the eyes of the electorate.

Some parties are even constructed on race and ethnicity and seek to exploit racial and ethnic differences in the quest for political power.

One of the unwritten rules of parties in the electoral contest is, you must never, under any circumstances, acknowledge or admit that the government formed by a rival party is doing a good job.

Admitting that the government is managing the economy or any other aspect of national life well is a cardinal sin and downright suicidal!!

This is not difficult to understand. If the government is doing an admirable job, what reason will the electorate have to replace the governing party with your party?

It is simple! The system lends itself to unscrupulous and unprincipled behavior.

Another shortcoming of a multi-party democracy is the tendency to focus on policies designed to gain short-term political advantage instead of medium and long-term policies for the development of the nation and its citizens.

Multi-party democracies also contribute to a deficit in critical thinking as party members and supporters see every issue through the eyes of party colours and symbols. Consequently, opposing views are silenced or disparaged and national issues and policies suffer from failure to objectively debate and evaluate opposing views.

Political parties in multi-party democracies are nothing more than ‘tribes’ fighting each other for control of the levers of power.

In this fight, the loser is more often than not, the nation and the long-term interests of its citizens.

We need to find a better way to practice democratic politics.

Mass Shootings and Acts of Terrorism

“What’s the matter with the world has the world gone mad? Nothing wrong with the world it’s the people that’s in it”-Lou Rawls

The lyrics to the song What’s the matter with the world? came to mind after hearing and watching news reports of the shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand resulting in the death of 49 worshippers.

It was just a day or two earlier that I heard news of a shooting at a school in Brazil, where five students were among eight persons killed, when two former students broke into the school and opened fire. The attackers killed themselves after their rampage.

Mass shootings are not new. Shootings have occurred at schools, nightclubs, concert venues and workplaces in the United States of America and elsewhere.

Acts of terrorism are also not uncommon. France, the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe have experienced terrorist attacks on their soil.

Humans are no strangers to killing and cruelty. Our history is full of accounts of men butchering men, women and children for any number of ‘reasons’.

Mankind is so obsessed with killing that multiple billions of dollars are spent annually to improve weapons and methods of killing to make them more efficient.

I have often said that it is possible I could take another person’s life in self-defense or to protect my daughter, a family member, a friend or even a stranger.

What I cannot see myself doing, however, is randomly shooting at and killing strangers with whom I have had no interaction as appears to be the case in some mass shootings and most terrorist attacks.

Returning to the shootings in New Zealand, I am at a loss to understand the level of hatred that motivated the twenty-eight years old perpetrator to attack Muslims in their place of worship.

I am reminded of a shooting in the USA, where the gunman’s motive for attacking and killing Christians at a Bible study in a church was his desire to start a ‘race war’.

We should brace ourselves for more mass shootings and acts of terrorism as access to weapons continues unabated and nationalist politicians stoke the fires of division and hate while exploiting their citizens’ fears, prejudices and ignorance.

The rise in attacks on religious and racial minorities will continue as proponents of white supremacy resort to violence to restore what they perceive to be a decline in the dominance Caucasians have enjoyed for centuries.

Additionally, the growing trend toward secularism and rejection of Christian teachings and commandments (love for one’s neighbours, forgiveness, faith, worship of almighty God and accountability to God for our actions) is leading to a removal of the moral compass that keeps us from being overwhelmed by our base instincts.

The survivors, families and friends of victims of the Christchurch attack would do well to heed God’s word:

Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. Romans 12:19 NIV.

“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”-Mahatma Gandhi

International Women’s Day-Celebrating Our Women

On this International Women’s Day, I pause to celebrate and honour the achievements of the women of the world.

It does not matter if you are a mother, a housewife, an academic, a head of state or the chief executive officer of a Fortune 500 company, women have made enormous and often unrecognized contributions and sacrifices to improve the state of our world.

Women have made tremendous strides in the face of a mountain of challenges and adversities. The world would be worse off without the contribution of our women.

Women have demonstrated strength of character, courage, determination and resilience in their quest to elevate themselves culturally, educationally, economically and socially and their efforts and successes must be celebrated.

We must admit that historically, we have not always afforded our women the place of honour and respect they so richly deserve and take steps to accelerate actions to remedy the many wrongs.

We must not forget that, even as we celebrate International Women’s Day, there are countries where women and girls are living in virtual servitude and denied even a basic education.

It was never God’s plan for men to lord it over women. The plan was always for man and woman to complement each other and thereby be stronger together.

Let us put aside the competition as there is no need to compete.

A man, even with the best of effort, can never replace a woman and likewise a woman cannot replace a man. So as women continue their struggle for the recognition of their worth and value, let the watchword be complement and not competition.

Both sexes (genders?) bring strengths and weaknesses to the table and when combined, the strengths increase and weaknesses diminish.

So I say to my follow males, we do not need to deny women the right to self-actualisation as in so doing we are only denying ourselves the opportunity to grow stronger.

To women I say, continue to agitate for your God-given rights, but it would be wise to do away with any pretensions of superiority to men. We need each other as together we are stronger and apart we are weaker.

In your agitation for your rights, be careful not to offend the Almighty God with demands clearly in opposition to His precepts and commandments.

I salute all women of the world on this International Women’s Day!

There is a lot more work to be done to undo the wrongs meted out to women over the years but you have made enormous strides in your quest to reclaim your place in God’s plan for a partnership between man and woman.

#MenandWomenStrongerTogether

The USA, North Korea and Nuclear Disarmament

I like to think of myself as a reasonable person with a sense of fair play. I am not given to intrigue and I am wont to be impartial in the discussion of most topics.

It is against this background that I contemplate the demand of the United States of America for unilateral denuclearization by North Korea.

Put another way, the United States of America, the world’s sole superpower, with one of the largest stockpiles of conventional and nuclear weapons is insisting that one of its sworn ‘enemies’ deny itself of the only weapon that may prevent the USA attacking it for any reason the president of the day may choose.

The situation is similar to a neighbour possessing a kennel of the most vicious dogs known to man and with a history of attacking neighbours with less vicious dogs or in some cases, no dogs, demanding that his next door neighbour gets rid of his single Pitbull or be starved to death.

There is not a snowball’s chance in hell I would agree to such a demand!

What moral authority does the USA and other countries in possession of nuclear weapons have to deny others having such weapons? Absolutely none!

If possession of nuclear weapons is dangerous it must be dangerous for all countries. It should not be a case where only a select few are permitted to have nuclear weapons and the attendant ability to terrorise other nations into doing their bidding or be ‘wiped off the face of the earth’.

History is replete with examples of powerful, imperialist countries invading weaker countries for any number of reasons. Sometimes it is to exploit (steal?) the weaker nation’s natural resources, sometimes to remove an evil dictator or even a democratically elected leader not to their liking.

The United States of America is guilty of all the reasons mentioned above.

North Korea, Iran and other countries described as American’s enemies have learnt the lessons from the overthrow of former leaders of Iraq and Libya. It is debatable if the USA would have proceeded in the manner it did if either country possessed nuclear weapons.

It is regrettable that we continue to live in a time in which the dominate theme in international relations is might is right. In this dispensation, countries the USA deems enemies, are eager to acquire the only weapon likely to make the self-imposed policeman of the world think twice about attacking them.

The need to acquire self-defence nuclear weapons is especially urgent if the country practises a form of government of which the USA disapproves. History has proved that being a democratically elected government is no guarantee of security from invasion or subversive activities.

The United States of America and other members of the nuclear club are responsible for the rush by some to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Christianity, The Church and Detractors

I describe myself as one who identifies with the Church, although in Christian circles I am regarded as a ‘backslider’. I guess time will tell if I am indeed a ‘backslider’.

I have been doing some reflection on how the Church and some Christians interact with critics of Christianity, Christians and the Church.

It seems to me that just as the Bible teaches that the first step to achieving God’s forgiveness is confession of sins, ‘if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John 1:9), the Church and Christians must be prepared to acknowledge (confess) the shortcomings of Christians and the Church when they are highlighted by detractors.

It is my experience that conversations with detractors tend to proceed much better when you are prepared to acknowledge the truths in their arguments.

Some Christians too often make the mistake of ‘circling the wagons’ when confronted with actions and speech of professors of the faith which are diametrically opposite to the tenets of the religion.

I suppose the fear is any acknowledgement of shortcomings will dilute the effectiveness and influence of Christianity and the Church.

I recommend acknowledgement of ‘unchristian’ behaviour and embrace of opportunities to show the difference between what was done or said and what the religion teaches.

Christianity, like all religions, professions, trades, organisations and groups, is populated by individuals of all stripes. Some are born again, some are pretenders, some are perverts seeking shelter and opportunities in the church and some seek opportunities for leadership they could not aspire to in the secular world.

With this mix of persons and personalities, it is almost inevitable some will conduct themselves contrary to the teachings of Jesus, the Christ and His apostles. When this happens, the Church should move with alacrity to acknowledge, confront and deal with the issues in the manner prescribed in the Bible.

Clearly this does not include cover-ups and sweeping matters ‘under the carpet’. When the law of the land is broken, perpetrators must be handed over to the authorities to face the consequences of their actions.

While the actions and lifestyles of Christians play an extremely important role in spreading the Gospel, they can never replace the teachings of Jesus Christ, His apostles and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Christians may (will?) sometimes fail but the Gospel of Jesus Christ will never fail!

The Garden of Eden, Feminism and the Abortion Debate

The abortion debate in Jamaica is once again on in earnest.

The debate essentially pits the Church against human rights and women rights activists. Alternatively, the battle could be described as a contest between Christian and secular beliefs.

The Church’s fundamental position is that life begins at conception (i.e. fertilisation of the female ovum by the male sperm) and any abortion (termination) of life is sinful and equivalent to murder.

Some Church leaders , however, are prepared to make exceptions to the general prohibition against abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Human rights activists propose legalisation of abortion to provide “women with access to safe, legal and affordable services to terminate pregnancies” thereby preventing them from “accessing unsafe services from individuals who are not adequately trained to perform abortions”.

Women rights activists agree with human rights activists and contend a woman should have complete control over her body and she alone should decide if she aborts a pregnancy or carry the child to term.

I propose to examine the issue from a different perspective.

Let us go to chapter 3 of the book of Genesis where the Fall is recorded. In verse 16, God told Eve “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labour you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

I venture to suggest that throughout history the last part of the verse, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”, coupled with the account that it was Eve who was deceived by the serpent, has been used as justification by men to dominate women and treat them as second class citizens.

I submit that the culture of treating women as inferior to men can be directly traced to chapter 3 of the book of Genesis and the greater responsibility attributed to Eve for the Fall.

For most of recorded history right up to the 20th century, women were denied basic rights afforded to men. For example, the right to an education and the right to vote. This denial of equal treatment still continues in many parts of our world.

In the 18th and 19th century, women began organising themselves to agitate for equal treatment to men and achieved a number of successes, perhaps most notably, the right to vote and access to education without restrictions.

In common with most oppressed groups, once the shackles were removed, women began to excel beyond their wildest imagination.

Women have excelled to the point where they now outnumber men in some institutions of learning to which they were once denied access.

Women are making tremendous strides in every facet of life, even in fields once dominated by men.

Feminists are no longer prepared to be dictated to by men. Women are taking their destiny into their own hands. Some women, even professing Christians, no longer accept the Bible’s account of Eve’s role in the Fall.

Some are not shy to suggest that rather than being a spirit, God is indeed a woman and this ‘fact’ has been concealed by men to perpetuate male dominance.

Women today are more empowered than they have ever been.

I submit that the demand a woman should have the right to decide what she does with her body, including the right to an abortion if she so chooses, is just an extension of the assertion of women’s rights and rebellion against male domination.

Extremists in the feminist movement are changing the narrative from equality of the sexes to one of female superiority.

The extremists will not listen to the Church as they see the Church as the foundation upon which male domination of women was built.

I posit that to extreme feminists the abortion debate is not so much about when life begins, empathy for victims of rape or incest or prevention of botched abortions.

To them the debate is a continuation of the quest for women’s rights and freedom from male domination.

The call for abortion on demand is just the latest example of how a laudable movement can be hijacked by extremists.

Lessons from the Bible

I have learnt a number of lessons about God and Christianity from reading the Bible and listening to sermons from God’s servants.

The most important lesson I have learnt is it is impossible to live the life of a Christian without yielding to the power of the Holy Spirit.

The teachings of Jesus Christ and His disciples are in many ways counter-intuitive to normal human behavior. For example, we are naturally inclined to hate our enemies and retaliate against persecution but in St. Matthew 5:44, Jesus requires us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. This can only be done when a life is yielded to the control of the Holy Spirit.

The requirement to forgive is another attribute that does not come naturally. We are naturally predisposed to avenging perceived wrongs, so again, this can generally, only be accomplished through yielding control to the Holy Spirit.

Living the life of a Christian is impossible without the help of the Holy Spirit.

Another lesson I learnt is no man or woman can thwart God’s plans. This lesson was learnt from the life of Joseph recorded in the book of Genesis. When Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery they thought they put paid to any possibility of bowing to him, little did they know they were advancing fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams.

When Joseph was imprisoned after Potiphar’s wife’s false accusation, he may have cursed his luck as his circumstances seemed to be moving from bad to worse. At that time, he may not have seen that his imprisonment was advancing the fulfillment of God’s plan and purpose for his life.

God is sovereign and His Will shall be done.

It is not man but God who determines who lives and who dies. This I learnt from the showdown between David and Goliath recorded in 1 Samuel: 17. From the tale of the tape, Goliath should have won the contest hands down but it was not David’s day to die! No man or woman can take my life unless it is God’s Will for me to die.

There is no guarantee gratitude will be shown for acts of kindness. This was seen in the Gospel of Luke 17:11-19, where Jesus healed ten lepers but only one returned to thank Him.

You never know what you will do in a given situation until you are actually in the situation. This I learnt from Peter’s denial of the Christ recorded in all four Gospels. The strength of your faith in Jesus will most likely be revealed when your life is in danger.

Some Christians will not be happy when a backslider returns to the fold. This I learnt from the Parable of the Prodigal Son. In the parable, I see the younger son as a backslider, the father as God and the big brother as the Church. While the father was overjoyed at the younger son’s return, the older brother was resentful of the welcome shown to his brother.

Insincere acts of piety and devotion to the cause may impress men but will not fool God. This was learnt from the account of Ananias and Sapphira as
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 5.

Those are some of the lessons learnt. Stay tuned as there might just be a part two. Shalom!

Thoughts About God

I believe in the God of the Christian religion. I believe God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. I believe God is just, loving, merciful and full of grace.

I believe God demonstrated His justice, love, mercy and grace by sending Jesus Christ, His Son, to die in our stead, suffer the penalty for our sins and provide the way of reconciliation to God.

I concede the possibility I believe these attributes of God because I was taught them in church and at Sunday school. I concede that I have not had in depth exposure to any other religion. I concede the possibility I would ascribe the same attributes to Allah and Muhammad if I was born and raised in a predominantly Muslim nation.

After conceding all those possibilities, I still believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

I confess, however, that many times I question my belief in God in the face of what appears to be God’s indifference or inaction to the plight of the poor, the weakest and most defenceless among us.

I often wonder why God does not intervene to protect children from paedophiles; to protect women and children from rapists; to protect women and girls from being trafficked as sex slaves; to prevent babies and children dying from hunger, starvation and disease; to protect the poor from exploitation by the rich and powerful.

Why are the countries least able to cope economically and socially with natural disasters the ones most frequently impacted by natural disasters?

Why are rich and powerful countries allowed to exploit the resources of poorer countries and drive them further into poverty?

Why didn’t God intervene in a recent incident in India where it was reported that an adult male sexually assault an infant child?

We know the atrocities are a direct consequence of the fall of man as recorded in the book of Genesis but doesn’t God have a special love for children, the poor, the weak and the defenceless?

It just seems to me that a just, loving and merciful God should intervene on the side of the poor, weak and vulnerable.

I don’t understand and I won’t pretend I do. I can only pray and asked God to strengthen my faith that He is still in control and all things are unfolding according to His sovereign plan.

One day, if it is His Will, everything will be made clear and every wrong shall be made right.