Skip to main content

South African pastor in paintball row

A South African missionary and pro-gun lobbyist has been charged with assault over a Halloween paintball incident.

The charges stem from 31 October when Rev Peter Hammond took his children out for a "counter Halloween" outing in the suburbs of Cape Town

Read the full story HERE

What interests me is Rev Hammond's motivation for shooting Halloween celebrators with paintball guns.

He said he and his family did not approve of Halloween, which they saw as an "occult holiday celebrating human sacrifice, witches and goblins".

The sheer irony of a representative of a religion based entirely on the human sacrifice of its Deity complaining about human sacrifice is mildly amusing.

Halloween is not really practised in the Southern Hemisphere, mostly because the Northern Hemisphere's harvest time coincides with our Spring, which makes pumpkins hard to find. In addition, human sacrifice and Halloween have not shared the same gallows since the time of the Celts - the time during which the Hebrews also practised human sacrifices, give or take a few hundred years.

Since the preacher man is objecting to the celebration of witches and goblins, does he then entertain the idea that witches and goblins both exist? By doing so, does he not acknowledge the existence of the gods of the witches - and hence the existence of deities other than his own?

One can not help but conclude that the supernatural world of fable is very real to the preacher, and one can not help but ask: What is next? Impaling Santa Clause at Christmas? Easter bunny handbags? Tooth fairy fly fishing?

Regardless, I think the preacher man gave the Devil his due by going out and having a whale of a time during Halloween. Party on, preacher man!


Popular posts from this blog

Fist bump the Trump

I must confess that I did not follow this election as it unfolded, because I have no skin in this game. I only became interested when I saw the crocodile tears on Facebook.

What fascinated me more was that the Trump supporters came out of the closet for the first time to voice their opinions. Virtually none of these Trump supporters espoused racist, misogynistic or any of those kind of deplorable views. Most of them were just pointing fingers at the know-it-all Clinton supporters.

What characterised this election? Rather than enlightened liberals waging a culture war with backward rednecks and hayseeds, three things characterised this election for me:
Shared hubris: Our candidate is bad, but the other candidate is even worse. Both parties seemed to espouse this sentiment.Joe Sixpack's Revenge: Based on voter turnout and based on for whom the largest voting group voted, this election was the revenge of the average American. That is average American by sheer number. Nobody bothered t…

Why has outrage come to dominate platforms like Twitter?

This question was posted on twitter by Sarah Britten Pillay. I shall try to answer that here, or at least address some of the topics surrounding this notion.

What makes a platform like Twitter more outrageous than the next? A brief summary of my thoughts on the topic: It would be interesting to contrive some outrage meter that could detect outrage levels in a piece of text.Plenty if not most of social media outrage is manufactured as a distraction.Outrage that isn't manufactured can be analysed by means of kin selection concepts from biology.If you aren't entirely sold on the sociobiology idea, then the balance of risk and incentive from game theory can also shed some light on the rationale behind social media outrage. Outrage levels are too damn high I do agree that social media platforms tend to be filled with more outrage than others, but as far as I know there is no means of detecting or measuring outrage. The need exists for some outrage quotient or some method of classify…

White tears the most valuable currency but not as valuable as fauxtrage

This formerly glorious publication which I shall not even bother naming has also fallen into the habit of censoring its comments section, at least when it comes to white tears. Fortunately, I could still save this obviously far superior comment from the rather myopic agitprop from whence it came. I know it is superior because the quality of your commentary is inversely proportional to how long it stays unscathed. That's why the sanctimonious finger-wagging op-eds rarely get deleted, but the comments rarely last long.
Anyone - black or white or of any other pigmentation persuasion - with a Rhodes Scholarship can but only cry White Tears. Someone with a Rhodes Scholarship is in the very lap of privilege, the likes of which not even the majority of pale South Africans born with a silver spoon will ever see. That is why it is not uncommon to see their ilk waiting on tables instead of whipping their slaves on their ill-begotten land, which they refuse to give up, you see.
A similar campa…