You’re having a quiet nap or a drink with friends on the patio and suddenly there comes a great noise of guitars, drums, singing and shouting from a house across the street, disturbing your peace. You reason that a bit of noise is acceptable when people have to live together in towns and cities, but this is just too much.
Naturally, you ask the partygoers to turn down the noise a bit and, if it persists, you may decide to complain to the local authorities.
You’re having a quiet nap or a drink with friends on the patio and suddenly there comes a great noise of wailing, clapping of hands and shouts of “Hallelujah!” from a building across the road. It’s a church.
Somehow, the partygoers – er, worshippers – feel they ought to be let off the hook. It’s religion, you see.
This has happened in a district of Kenya (I’m sure it happens in other places, too, including in city areas here in good old Blighty).
But these wailing idiots are taking a case to court to challenge new rules on noise pollution.
“You cannot force worshippers who want to sing and shout in praise because even the Bible tells us to make a joyful noise to the Lord [. . .] We will sing and make noise in God’s praise even if they jail us or take us to court,” said Bishop Mark Kariuki of the Deliverance Church of Kenya.
Perhaps the best sort of deliverance for these nutcases would be deliverance to a remote part of the desert, where they could shout and wail to their hearts’ content.
gay and lesbian matters, rationalism, atheism, freethought, secularism — this is the weblog of the Pink Triangle Trust, the only gay humanist charity
Pages
▼
Thursday, 3 December 2009
1 comment:
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Sure an easy solution, ship the lot off to a remote desert. But over time difference will happen and sure enough the problem starts all over again.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking a full frontal lobotomy would be the right thing to do in this case.