On my way to work this morning, I stumbled across a copy of yesterday's Sun newspaper. Except it wasn't a complete copy, just the third page. And as I was looking down at it, something caught my eye (I know what you're thinking - Oh yeah? I bet a couple of things caught his eye. Ay? Ay? - well grow up). What caught my eye was a 50-year-old, fully uniformed, female salvationist holding a collection box. And as I figured this was probably the only time I would see a 50-year-old, fully uniformed, female salvationist holding a collection box on page 3 of the Sun, I quickly picked up the page and read through the article in an attempt to ascertain what in blue blazes she was doing there. It turns out that the Sun has got the hump because the Salvation Army will no longer sell copies of their newspaper in the Sally Army shops at British forces' bases in Germany. British soldiers are accusing the SA of being old fashioned and prudish. One Lance Corporal said: "This is an out-of-date decision by people who aren't in the real world". It seems that no one (including the Canon David Meara for crying out loud) can understand why the Salvation Army is now refusing to sell soft-porn.
What I don't understand, though, is why we were selling it in the first place. It seems to tie in with the morally corrupting attitude (an attitude which the Sun thrives off of) that if enough people like it, then it can't be that bad. After all, it's only a pair of breasts. In this day and age, what's the big deal? And I'm disappointed that the Salvation Army in Germany seems to have adopted this attitude as it's the opposite that is the very thing that the Salvation Army stand for. If people can't understand why the Army won't sell the Sun then people don't understand the Army. And if the Army is selling newspapers like the Sun and conforming to the world's opinions then the Army doesn't seem to understand the Army. We were established as a group of eccentrics who were willing to look ridiculous in order to stand against the moral indecencies of society. Now it seems we've become a much weaker and more harmless organisation who have indecisively changed their minds on something they used to think was ok and who are now just hoping to keep a low profile until it all blows over.
Am I over-reacting?
Oh, and for those of you wandering how I did it, here's a pictoral guide, illustrating how a Christian man can read the articles in page 3 of The Sun without succumbing to temptation:
5 comments:
After reading back over my post from last night I feel that I should clarify (for fear of projecting an image that would make me a hypocrite) that my passion against soft-porn in general and the Sun in particular does not stem from my being a pure and innocent saint who is offended by such images. Rather, from a struggling 23 year old Christian guy who, if he's honest, actually kinda likes such images.
Just so we're clear.
hi glyn! just sent you an email, but i'm not sure whether you still have the same address as you used to (the 'quail' one?) - if not, let me know! i still have the same address as always!
take care and speak to you soon,
john
Hey Glyn, I can SENSE your outrage. Hmm, very subtle and yes, I agree with you.By the way, did you know, that after reading your blog and then looking at your photo, the aftershock of white on black makes it look as if your eyes are going up and down - just thought you should know :)
I posted my first comment ever on another post lower down but after flicking through the blog I've noticed that you mention numerous times how you are a 'single christian guy'!! Is that a subliminal message to all the ladies out there who might be entertained by your random rambling??!
Well if you can't meet a girl by blog, how can you?
Who ARE you?!
Post a Comment