Honey hurts more than just bees. It hurts egg-laying hens, crammed in battery cages so small they can’t spread their wings. It hurts mother pigs, languishing for months in steel crates so narrow they can’t turn around. And the billions of aquatic animals who, pulled from filthy aquaculture farms, suffocate to death. All because honey hurts our movement.
It’s happened to me over and over. Someone will ask me why I’m vegan—it could be a new friend, co-worker, distant family, or a complete stranger. I know I then have but a tiny window of opportunity to indelibly convey their first impression of veganism. I’m either going to open that window for that person, breezing in fresh ideas and sunlight, or slam it shut as the blinds fall. So I talk to them of mercy. Of the cats and dogs with whom they’ve shared their lives. Of birds with a half piece of paper’s worth of space in which to live and die. Of animals sometimes literally suffering to death. I used to eat meat too, I tell them. Lots of meat. And I never knew either.
Slowly but surely the horror dawns on them. You start to see them struggling internally. How can they pet their dog with one hand and stab a piece of pig with the other? They love animals, but they eat animals. Then, just when their conscience seems to be winning out, they learn that we don’t eat honey. And you can see the conflict drain away with an almost visible sigh. They finally think they understand what this whole “vegan” thing is all about. You’re not vegan because you’re trying to be kind or compassionate—you’re just crazy! They smile. They point. You almost had me going for a second, they chuckle. Whew, that was a close one. They almost had to seriously think about the issues. They may have just been considering boycotting eggs, arguably the most concentrated form of animal cruelty, and then the thought hits them that you’re standing up for insect rights. Maybe they imagine us putting out little thimble-sized bowls of food for the cockroaches every night.
I’m afraid that our public avoidance of honey is hurting us as a movement. A certain number of bees are undeniably killed by honey production, but far more insects are killed, for example, in sugar production. And if we really cared about bugs we would never again eat anything either at home or in a restaurant that wasn’t strictly organically grown—after all, killing bugs is what pesticides do best. And organic production uses pesticides too (albeit “natural”). Researchers measure up to approximately 10,000 bugs per square foot of soil—that’s over 400 million per acre, 250 trillion per square mile. Even “veganically” grown produce involves the deaths of countless bugs in lost habitat, tilling, harvesting and transportation. We probably kill more bugs driving to the grocery store to get some honey-sweetened product than are killed in the product’s production.
Our position on honey therefore just doesn’t make any sense, and I think the general population knows this on an intuitive level. Veganism for them, then, becomes more about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person. We have this kind of magical thinking; we feel good about ourselves as if we’re actually helping the animals obsessing about where some trace ingredient comes from, when in fact it may have the opposite effect. We may be hurting animals by making veganism seem more like petty dogmatic self-flagellation.
In my eyes, if we choose to avoid honey, fine. Let’s just not make a huge production of it and force everybody to do the same if they want to join the club.
source
Jemdude's comments:
I've recently become a vegan in accordance to this definition for health reasons. I abstain from meat, dairy and eggs, but still eat honey. Honey doesn't have the health concerns that meat, dairy and eggs do so I'm not worried about.
This 11+ minute audio file also explains my view on this issue:
link
This is a new area for me, so please keep this in mind if you choose to comment on the article and my calling myself "vegan".
Wednesday, 12 December 2007
Monday, 10 December 2007
Latimer should stay behind bars
Your letter writers claim there was a "miscarriage of justice" for Robert Latimer? I don't think so -- Robert Latimer gassed his daughter to death.
The words seem stark on the page, but they are true. He murdered her. Consider this: your daughter has a congenital syndrome that, among other things, leads to a painful joint dislocation. You can take advantage of Canada's vaunted public health system and have the doctors perform the recommended orthopedic repair, with additional pain-relieving medication and rehabilitation. Or you can drag her out to the backyard shed and gas her to death.
Years later, he still shows no remorse. I think the penalty, and denied parole, are appropriate.
Anyone who now laments the jail sentence for "this simple farmer," this "salt of the earth" man can only be motivated by one thing: a complete disrespect for people with disabilities, indeed a belief that they are somehow not worthy of being fellow members of our human community. No amount of "care" or "compassion" talk can sugar-coat this ugly truth below the surface of such a notion.
If Robert Latimer truly believed he was doing the right thing in killing his innocent daughter, then he should be man enough to pay the price. His daughter already has.
Paul Ranalli, Toronto.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
This is a very popular case in Canada and especially among the disability community. Years ago, Robert Latimer killed his daughter Tracy Latimer just because she had a disability. Lots of people at the time wrote in and sympathized with Latimer. The disability community as a whole is outraged because it shows that a lot of people don't think highly of people with disabilities.
The problem is, we don't know if Tracy Latimer wanted to be killed. If this kind of ruling was left to stand, a person can kill anyone with a disability and then make up a story saying that "they wanted me to end their pain" when in reality, they just want to make an excuse to murder someone.
In Canada, we already have the legal right to take our own life. Don't support someone else to have the right to make that decision for you.
The words seem stark on the page, but they are true. He murdered her. Consider this: your daughter has a congenital syndrome that, among other things, leads to a painful joint dislocation. You can take advantage of Canada's vaunted public health system and have the doctors perform the recommended orthopedic repair, with additional pain-relieving medication and rehabilitation. Or you can drag her out to the backyard shed and gas her to death.
Years later, he still shows no remorse. I think the penalty, and denied parole, are appropriate.
Anyone who now laments the jail sentence for "this simple farmer," this "salt of the earth" man can only be motivated by one thing: a complete disrespect for people with disabilities, indeed a belief that they are somehow not worthy of being fellow members of our human community. No amount of "care" or "compassion" talk can sugar-coat this ugly truth below the surface of such a notion.
If Robert Latimer truly believed he was doing the right thing in killing his innocent daughter, then he should be man enough to pay the price. His daughter already has.
Paul Ranalli, Toronto.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
This is a very popular case in Canada and especially among the disability community. Years ago, Robert Latimer killed his daughter Tracy Latimer just because she had a disability. Lots of people at the time wrote in and sympathized with Latimer. The disability community as a whole is outraged because it shows that a lot of people don't think highly of people with disabilities.
The problem is, we don't know if Tracy Latimer wanted to be killed. If this kind of ruling was left to stand, a person can kill anyone with a disability and then make up a story saying that "they wanted me to end their pain" when in reality, they just want to make an excuse to murder someone.
In Canada, we already have the legal right to take our own life. Don't support someone else to have the right to make that decision for you.
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Prostitute offers sex for charity
A high-class Chilean prostitute touched by a charity telethon's bid to raise money for handicapped children has stepped forward with her own contribution - 27 hours of sex.
That's how much paid sex work the escort, Maria Carolina, has said she wants to contribute to the Teleton association.
The money she earns from the marathon session, scheduled for November 30-December 1, will go to the charity, Ms Carolina said.
She said she would post a picture of the bank deposit slip on her website afterwards to dispel any doubts.
"I am going to contribute with my work to a purpose that touches me deeply," Ms Carolina said.
She has spread her message through several online sites and television programs.
But the administrator of the Teleton foundation, television presenter Mario Kreutzberger, has thrown cold water on the proposition, saying it falls well outside his moral guidelines and he cannot accept it.
Ms Carolina, though, said she was determined.
"How can someone question a person who wants to put her job at the service of a noble cause?" she asked.
source
Jemdude's comments:
There actually is a Bible verse that forbids a church from knowingly accepting money gained through questionable means:
You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog (male prostitute) into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 23:18 ESV
That's how much paid sex work the escort, Maria Carolina, has said she wants to contribute to the Teleton association.
The money she earns from the marathon session, scheduled for November 30-December 1, will go to the charity, Ms Carolina said.
She said she would post a picture of the bank deposit slip on her website afterwards to dispel any doubts.
"I am going to contribute with my work to a purpose that touches me deeply," Ms Carolina said.
She has spread her message through several online sites and television programs.
But the administrator of the Teleton foundation, television presenter Mario Kreutzberger, has thrown cold water on the proposition, saying it falls well outside his moral guidelines and he cannot accept it.
Ms Carolina, though, said she was determined.
"How can someone question a person who wants to put her job at the service of a noble cause?" she asked.
source
Jemdude's comments:
There actually is a Bible verse that forbids a church from knowingly accepting money gained through questionable means:
You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog (male prostitute) into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 23:18 ESV
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
Australian pro-family group decries new prime minister
The leader of a pro-family group in Australia predicts the prime minister-elect will champion policies that are not friendly to Christians.
On Saturday, Labor Party candidate Kevin Rudd soundly defeated John Howard, who held the post for 11 years. The prime minister-elect champions issues such as global warming -- for example, he plans to ratify the Kyoto Protocol -- and vows to pull all Australian troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. Leading up to the election, Prime Minister Howard had argued before voters that "if you change the government, you will change the fundamental direction of this country."
Jack Sonnemann, president of the Australian Federation for the Family (AFF), could not agree more. He says Rudd's Labor Party will move the nation toward the political left.
"In fact, in Canberra, the Labor Party in their policy handbook says that they'll reform the law so that sexual acts between consenting minors above the age of 13 are not contrary to criminal law. He wants to lower the age of consent to 13; that's his party policy," says Sonnemann.
The family advocate also notes that no one from the Labor Party has ever promoted an AFF provision that would protect children from sexual exploitation. Rudd also promises to support homosexual rights. "We're going to have an uphill battle," says Sonnemann.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
I'm really going to miss John Howard. He was a good prime minister that I admired.
On Saturday, Labor Party candidate Kevin Rudd soundly defeated John Howard, who held the post for 11 years. The prime minister-elect champions issues such as global warming -- for example, he plans to ratify the Kyoto Protocol -- and vows to pull all Australian troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. Leading up to the election, Prime Minister Howard had argued before voters that "if you change the government, you will change the fundamental direction of this country."
Jack Sonnemann, president of the Australian Federation for the Family (AFF), could not agree more. He says Rudd's Labor Party will move the nation toward the political left.
"In fact, in Canberra, the Labor Party in their policy handbook says that they'll reform the law so that sexual acts between consenting minors above the age of 13 are not contrary to criminal law. He wants to lower the age of consent to 13; that's his party policy," says Sonnemann.
The family advocate also notes that no one from the Labor Party has ever promoted an AFF provision that would protect children from sexual exploitation. Rudd also promises to support homosexual rights. "We're going to have an uphill battle," says Sonnemann.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
I'm really going to miss John Howard. He was a good prime minister that I admired.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Six: The Mark Unleashed
In the last days before Armageddon, a brutal dictator rules Earth. Using high-tech surveillance from satellites through a sophisticated chip implant, the Community Police Force infiltrates every facet of human existence, tracing each physical and digital footprint left behind. For humanity, freedom is just a fond memory and defiance means death. Two political prisoners (David White, Kevin Downes) meet a mysterious stranger (Stephen Baldwin) who holds the key to their escape and mankind’s survival. Unbeknownst to the prisoners, CPF agents broker a deal with an inmate (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) for his life in exchange for betraying Christian renegades. These three unlikely allies must escape the executioner’s blade, thwart a manhunt by elite CPF operatives (Amy Moon, Brad Heller) and join forces with the world’s most wanted fugitive: the leader of the resistance (Cosimo Michael). If they fail, humanity will be marked for death, the resistance will collapse and the enemy will have taken every last life.
Starring: Stephen Baldwin, David White, Kevin Downes, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Amy Moon, Brad Heller and Cosimo Michael.
Debuted at #6 On The CBA Best Sellers List
"An entertaining movie and a useful tool for leading people to consider the claims of the Gospel." Ted Baehr, MOVIEGUIDE®
“The power of the gospel to transform the lives of the characters is shown with deeply moving reality. So real is the presentation of the plan of salvation in this movie, the viewer will be left without excuse.”
Pastor John Hagee, Global Evangelism Television
“Both Rexella and I believe this to be the greatest religious release we have ever watched. I know you will be tremendously moved as never before when viewing this Holy Spirit led production.”
Dr. Jack Van Impe, President of JVI International
Jemdude's Comments:
This is one of the best Christian movies I've ever seen! I already have the DVD of this movie and I encourage others to do the same. You can watch it in it's entirety at the following Youtube link in 11 parts. I'll put 1 of 11 here, and you can find the rest of them on Youtube:
Six: The Mark Unleashed 1 of 11
Starring: Stephen Baldwin, David White, Kevin Downes, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Amy Moon, Brad Heller and Cosimo Michael.
Debuted at #6 On The CBA Best Sellers List
"An entertaining movie and a useful tool for leading people to consider the claims of the Gospel." Ted Baehr, MOVIEGUIDE®
“The power of the gospel to transform the lives of the characters is shown with deeply moving reality. So real is the presentation of the plan of salvation in this movie, the viewer will be left without excuse.”
Pastor John Hagee, Global Evangelism Television
“Both Rexella and I believe this to be the greatest religious release we have ever watched. I know you will be tremendously moved as never before when viewing this Holy Spirit led production.”
Dr. Jack Van Impe, President of JVI International
Jemdude's Comments:
This is one of the best Christian movies I've ever seen! I already have the DVD of this movie and I encourage others to do the same. You can watch it in it's entirety at the following Youtube link in 11 parts. I'll put 1 of 11 here, and you can find the rest of them on Youtube:
Six: The Mark Unleashed 1 of 11
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
UN Finally Admits Worldwide AIDS Epidemic Greatly Overestimated
UNAIDS estimates now much lower but AIDS scientist says new figures still too high
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
NEW YORK, November 20, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As reported by LifeSiteNews at the beginning of November, the number of AIDS cases worldwide has been grossly exaggerated by the UN Joint Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). This exaggeration was seen to benefit the massive AIDS industry's constant demands for large funds. See LifeSiteNews.com stories here: Scientists Acknowledge AIDS Crisis is Distorted and Overblown - Part I (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07110101.html) and Part II (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/071102.html). Now the UN has been forced to admit there has been a major problem with its numbers.
On Tuesday, a UNAIDS annual report admitted the the world body has sharply reduced its estimates of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic because of strong evidence from AIDS scientists that the agency's methods for measuring and predicting the course of the epidemic were flawed.
Dr. James Chin, former head of a World Health Organization Global Programme on Aids unit from 1987-1992 and Drs. Edward Green and Daniel Halperin, formerly with AIDS units of USAID, accumulated and publicised much of the evidence that eventually forced the UN to publicly admit the serious flaws with its AIDS numbers.
The Washinton Post reports that Dr. Chin has responded that the UN's revisions are still too high. Chin estimates the current number of AIDS cases worldwide to be 25 million whereas the new UN figures are 8 millon above that. Chin told the Post "If they're coming out with 33 million, they're getting closer. It's a little high, but it's not outrageous anymore".
Much of the reduction, says UNAIDS, is due to revised information from India, where the numbers have been cut in half from six million cases to about three million, and from new data from several countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
The agency's former estimates were based on studies of HIV infection rates of women receiving prenatal care rather than populations as a whole. New studies relying on random, census-style sampling techniques observed consistently lower infection rates.
The AIDS experts critical of the UN emphasise that dramatically lower rates of infection in African countries such as Kenya and Uganda can be attributed to sexual behavior differences "which are the biggest factors determining the severity of the AIDS epidemic in different countries and even within countries." Significantly, these African countries have strong support for abstinence education, whereas countries in the "hot spot" of African AIDS concentration, such as Swaziland and Botswana, consistently promote condom use.
The UN AIDS agency and other members of the AIDS industry have often ridiculed and aggressively targetted those who emphasised abstinence programs over failed and very costly condom distribution campaigns.
AIDS researchers have stated that AIDS has become a "Billion Dollar Industry" that stands to profit from misinformation. Inflated AIDS numbers were used to distort information in order to gain political and financial support for AIDS progammes.
Helen Epstein, author of a recent book on the AIDS fight, told the Washington Post that within the UN, "There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda".
The now far more realistic findings may cause spending for AIDS research and treatment to be reduced and at the same time possibly lead the UN to accept the overwhelming evidence that abstinence programs will save far more lives than massive condom distribution and harmful sex-ed programs.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
Nice to know that the truth is out. Looks like AIDS sufferers are being used by the condom makers and others for profit. Another reason to trust Christians when they say that abstinence and marital fidelity are the only real ways to prevent getting STD's and AIDS.
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
NEW YORK, November 20, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As reported by LifeSiteNews at the beginning of November, the number of AIDS cases worldwide has been grossly exaggerated by the UN Joint Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). This exaggeration was seen to benefit the massive AIDS industry's constant demands for large funds. See LifeSiteNews.com stories here: Scientists Acknowledge AIDS Crisis is Distorted and Overblown - Part I (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07110101.html) and Part II (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/071102.html). Now the UN has been forced to admit there has been a major problem with its numbers.
On Tuesday, a UNAIDS annual report admitted the the world body has sharply reduced its estimates of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic because of strong evidence from AIDS scientists that the agency's methods for measuring and predicting the course of the epidemic were flawed.
Dr. James Chin, former head of a World Health Organization Global Programme on Aids unit from 1987-1992 and Drs. Edward Green and Daniel Halperin, formerly with AIDS units of USAID, accumulated and publicised much of the evidence that eventually forced the UN to publicly admit the serious flaws with its AIDS numbers.
The Washinton Post reports that Dr. Chin has responded that the UN's revisions are still too high. Chin estimates the current number of AIDS cases worldwide to be 25 million whereas the new UN figures are 8 millon above that. Chin told the Post "If they're coming out with 33 million, they're getting closer. It's a little high, but it's not outrageous anymore".
Much of the reduction, says UNAIDS, is due to revised information from India, where the numbers have been cut in half from six million cases to about three million, and from new data from several countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
The agency's former estimates were based on studies of HIV infection rates of women receiving prenatal care rather than populations as a whole. New studies relying on random, census-style sampling techniques observed consistently lower infection rates.
The AIDS experts critical of the UN emphasise that dramatically lower rates of infection in African countries such as Kenya and Uganda can be attributed to sexual behavior differences "which are the biggest factors determining the severity of the AIDS epidemic in different countries and even within countries." Significantly, these African countries have strong support for abstinence education, whereas countries in the "hot spot" of African AIDS concentration, such as Swaziland and Botswana, consistently promote condom use.
The UN AIDS agency and other members of the AIDS industry have often ridiculed and aggressively targetted those who emphasised abstinence programs over failed and very costly condom distribution campaigns.
AIDS researchers have stated that AIDS has become a "Billion Dollar Industry" that stands to profit from misinformation. Inflated AIDS numbers were used to distort information in order to gain political and financial support for AIDS progammes.
Helen Epstein, author of a recent book on the AIDS fight, told the Washington Post that within the UN, "There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda".
The now far more realistic findings may cause spending for AIDS research and treatment to be reduced and at the same time possibly lead the UN to accept the overwhelming evidence that abstinence programs will save far more lives than massive condom distribution and harmful sex-ed programs.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
Nice to know that the truth is out. Looks like AIDS sufferers are being used by the condom makers and others for profit. Another reason to trust Christians when they say that abstinence and marital fidelity are the only real ways to prevent getting STD's and AIDS.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
Are kids Halloween costumes too adult?
I've seen this matter before. It's with a lot of kid's clothing, especially with little girl's clothing.
link
It's not just at Halloween, but everywhere. There have even been complaints about some child modelling sites where they may dress too lewdly or in questionable positions.
link
It's not just at Halloween, but everywhere. There have even been complaints about some child modelling sites where they may dress too lewdly or in questionable positions.
Thursday, 20 September 2007
Former gay and lesbian who have seen the light
After 29 years as a gay activist, former lesbian magazine publisher Charlene Cothran stunned the homosexual community when she announced she had become a Christian.
She has renounced her homosexuality, and changed the format of her magazine to spread the Gospel to the gay community.
full article and video
Article and 30 minute testemony of former gay man who has seen the light
She has renounced her homosexuality, and changed the format of her magazine to spread the Gospel to the gay community.
full article and video
Article and 30 minute testemony of former gay man who has seen the light
Saturday, 15 September 2007
Will worldly mods/admins of secular message boards someday enforce rules against criticising pedophilia?
I have a poll at the bottom that asks this question, and as of today, you only have 15 days left to vote in it!
I guess you are wondering why I put it there? Well, I do go to some secular message boards where some of the mods/admins grew up in politically incorrect eras and now embrace the "new morality" which is in reality, immorality. If these same people were asked to support "gay marriages" back in the 80s, they would never have gone along with it. Some of them now support it after going through a 15-20 year process of political correctness. This is similar to the frog that jumps out of boiling water when put into boiling water, but will stay in boiling water if put in cold water that is slowing heated up to the boiling point. If this type of thing worked with them accepting homosexuality, then the same method will work with other forms of "sexuality" and politically correct issues of the future that they might not accept today. After all, some people in the APA and universities are endorsing it.
Do I expect the secular mods/admins to endorse pedophilia at this time? Of course not. Doing so at this time would be similar to promoting gay marriages in the 80s. Would they endorse it in the future? I can't speak for all secular mods/admins, but there is a chance that they would accept it if the political climate changed to that kind of acceptance. Their actions will show what side they are on. There are other sexualities such as bisexuality and transexuality and there is no evidence of any opposition to these lifestyles. That being the case, it is only a matter of time when they will support pedophilia when it becomes politically correct to do so.
So don't forget to vote in my poll down below on this issue.
I guess you are wondering why I put it there? Well, I do go to some secular message boards where some of the mods/admins grew up in politically incorrect eras and now embrace the "new morality" which is in reality, immorality. If these same people were asked to support "gay marriages" back in the 80s, they would never have gone along with it. Some of them now support it after going through a 15-20 year process of political correctness. This is similar to the frog that jumps out of boiling water when put into boiling water, but will stay in boiling water if put in cold water that is slowing heated up to the boiling point. If this type of thing worked with them accepting homosexuality, then the same method will work with other forms of "sexuality" and politically correct issues of the future that they might not accept today. After all, some people in the APA and universities are endorsing it.
Do I expect the secular mods/admins to endorse pedophilia at this time? Of course not. Doing so at this time would be similar to promoting gay marriages in the 80s. Would they endorse it in the future? I can't speak for all secular mods/admins, but there is a chance that they would accept it if the political climate changed to that kind of acceptance. Their actions will show what side they are on. There are other sexualities such as bisexuality and transexuality and there is no evidence of any opposition to these lifestyles. That being the case, it is only a matter of time when they will support pedophilia when it becomes politically correct to do so.
So don't forget to vote in my poll down below on this issue.
Thursday, 30 August 2007
Tolerance Should Be Shown To What God Says About Homosexuality
(The following letter-to-the-editor of the Zanesville, Ohio, “Times-Recorder” was written by Dr. Patrick Johnston in response to the editor’s urging that their community be more tolerant toward homosexuals. Dr. Johnston has announced he is a Republican candidate for the 94th District seat in the Ohio House of Representatives.)
Managing editor Len LaCara decried the intolerance of our community in a recent Sunday editorial. I also would like to see more tolerance, but tolerance of something besides what he proposes we tolerate. Liberals propose we tolerate homosexuality and pornographic literature in our public libraries. I propose we tolerate the standards of morality found in the pages of the Bible.
According to the Bible, homosexual acts are “unnatural” and sinful. Physiology and statistical analysis show that homosexual acts spread dysfunction and disease. Michael Glatze, a major national gay activist, recently came out of the closet to talk about his repentance of homosexuality. He said, “For me, homosexuality was spiritual and psychological death.” The Bible says that homosexuals can change through God’s power (I Corinthians 6:9-11). It is not loving to embrace a sin that our Creator condemns and that is so destructive to those engaging in it. Love constrains us to oppose immorality, even as we lay down our lives (and sometimes our reputations) for those for whom Christ died.
When liberals are losing a debate over morality, they frequently resort to calling Christians “intolerant” and “judgmental.” But aren’t they being judgmental when they call us names? When they preach against our community’s intolerance, aren’t they foisting their morality upon others? Who they are to judge? You see, they violate the very standard they have set up to reprove Bible-believing Christians. Isn’t that hypocritical?
Ask a liberal what their basis for right and wrong is, and which behaviors should be tolerated or not tolerated. Ultimately, the liberal has no basis for his moral standards besides his personal opinion. Christians have the objective standard of right and wrong that has stood the test of time, the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Bible, our Creator tells us which behaviors are acceptable and healthy. Homosexual acts have traditionally been condemned by the world’s three main religions for good reasons. When tolerance of rebellion to God becomes widespread, destruction, not prosperity, is imminent.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
The article is very true. Christians determine right and wrong in accordance with the Bible, while atheists determine right and wrong according to their own opinion and the changing political climate. Homosexuals and their supporters need to be more tolerant toward those who have different views than they do. Not doing so is failure to practice the very same tolerance that they want everybody else to do toward them.
Managing editor Len LaCara decried the intolerance of our community in a recent Sunday editorial. I also would like to see more tolerance, but tolerance of something besides what he proposes we tolerate. Liberals propose we tolerate homosexuality and pornographic literature in our public libraries. I propose we tolerate the standards of morality found in the pages of the Bible.
According to the Bible, homosexual acts are “unnatural” and sinful. Physiology and statistical analysis show that homosexual acts spread dysfunction and disease. Michael Glatze, a major national gay activist, recently came out of the closet to talk about his repentance of homosexuality. He said, “For me, homosexuality was spiritual and psychological death.” The Bible says that homosexuals can change through God’s power (I Corinthians 6:9-11). It is not loving to embrace a sin that our Creator condemns and that is so destructive to those engaging in it. Love constrains us to oppose immorality, even as we lay down our lives (and sometimes our reputations) for those for whom Christ died.
When liberals are losing a debate over morality, they frequently resort to calling Christians “intolerant” and “judgmental.” But aren’t they being judgmental when they call us names? When they preach against our community’s intolerance, aren’t they foisting their morality upon others? Who they are to judge? You see, they violate the very standard they have set up to reprove Bible-believing Christians. Isn’t that hypocritical?
Ask a liberal what their basis for right and wrong is, and which behaviors should be tolerated or not tolerated. Ultimately, the liberal has no basis for his moral standards besides his personal opinion. Christians have the objective standard of right and wrong that has stood the test of time, the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Bible, our Creator tells us which behaviors are acceptable and healthy. Homosexual acts have traditionally been condemned by the world’s three main religions for good reasons. When tolerance of rebellion to God becomes widespread, destruction, not prosperity, is imminent.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
The article is very true. Christians determine right and wrong in accordance with the Bible, while atheists determine right and wrong according to their own opinion and the changing political climate. Homosexuals and their supporters need to be more tolerant toward those who have different views than they do. Not doing so is failure to practice the very same tolerance that they want everybody else to do toward them.
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
The problem with Mighty Markie's reasoning on the issue of children
Mighty Markie is one of the administrators in one of the message boards I sometimes frequent. He is of the opinion that only parents should be involved in child issues and that if one is not a parent, then they have no business with child issues whatsoever. To date, this is the only person I've met that thinks this way. I am going to explain why this is flawed reasoning.
1) If only parents are allowed to engage in child issues, then only parents can get involved in the pro-life/pro-abortion issues. The reasoning that anyone who is not a parent should keep out of this if flawed.
2)Some issues are not purely parental issues. A good example is the issue as to whether to lower the voting age to 16. Such an issue is a political issue as well as a parental issue. Another issue are laws outlawing spanking. These are political issues and therefore, are legitimate topics to talk about by anyone; not just parents.
3) I have my own childhood experiences to draw upon. In other words, I used to be a kid myself. I haven't forgotten what it was like to be one. I also had a little brother to guide and take care of. So the idea that not being a parent means that I have zero knowledge about kids is completely false.
4) Mighty Markie is opposed to the young marriages that I advocate. Nothing wrong with that. However, he seems to think that it is of my own thinking when in reality, it is a Bible principle that is geared toward people of conservative religious faiths. He is not a member of such a faith and yet he opposes it so much. If he doesn't like it, then he should take it up with God.
(I have modified my position on young marriages to ages 18-25 which I believe that the vast majority can wait until. Marriages at ages 16-17 with parent's permission is good in special circumstances, but not recommended for the majority of people.)
What is ironic is that he seems unconcerned about gay organizations in Canada who support keeping the age of consent at 14. Why this inconsistency is something that has yet to be explained.
5) Mighty Markie supports the "right" of parents to consent to doctors in hospitals to mutilate their child if they have a mental disabiity that makes them unaware of what is happening to them. A good example is the "Ashley treatment" where her parents consented to having perfectly healthy body parts removed to keep her "childlike". This is a violation of human rights that even parents should not break. So much for the rights of people with disabilities.
1) If only parents are allowed to engage in child issues, then only parents can get involved in the pro-life/pro-abortion issues. The reasoning that anyone who is not a parent should keep out of this if flawed.
2)Some issues are not purely parental issues. A good example is the issue as to whether to lower the voting age to 16. Such an issue is a political issue as well as a parental issue. Another issue are laws outlawing spanking. These are political issues and therefore, are legitimate topics to talk about by anyone; not just parents.
3) I have my own childhood experiences to draw upon. In other words, I used to be a kid myself. I haven't forgotten what it was like to be one. I also had a little brother to guide and take care of. So the idea that not being a parent means that I have zero knowledge about kids is completely false.
4) Mighty Markie is opposed to the young marriages that I advocate. Nothing wrong with that. However, he seems to think that it is of my own thinking when in reality, it is a Bible principle that is geared toward people of conservative religious faiths. He is not a member of such a faith and yet he opposes it so much. If he doesn't like it, then he should take it up with God.
(I have modified my position on young marriages to ages 18-25 which I believe that the vast majority can wait until. Marriages at ages 16-17 with parent's permission is good in special circumstances, but not recommended for the majority of people.)
What is ironic is that he seems unconcerned about gay organizations in Canada who support keeping the age of consent at 14. Why this inconsistency is something that has yet to be explained.
5) Mighty Markie supports the "right" of parents to consent to doctors in hospitals to mutilate their child if they have a mental disabiity that makes them unaware of what is happening to them. A good example is the "Ashley treatment" where her parents consented to having perfectly healthy body parts removed to keep her "childlike". This is a violation of human rights that even parents should not break. So much for the rights of people with disabilities.
Saturday, 25 August 2007
Uganda: ABC Aids Strategy is the Way to Go
STATISTICS project that in 2010, 100 million people will be HIV-positive globally. As usual, majority of these will be the poor from Africa and Asia. Uganda's success story of reducing HIV prevalence from 30% to 6% will soon be a gone case. We have forgotten where we came from yet uncertain of the future.
Uganda's point was clear: Aids kills, abstain from sex before marriage and be faithful in marriage. Hope was restored and Uganda became a universal focal point on the Aids issue.
However, the consequences of Uganda's approach were not business friendly because condom-makers would not sell. Secondly, some organisations earn their daily bread from HIV/Aids. These advocate the change of the prevention strategy to anything other than ABC.
Today, abstinence is viewed as a primitive and religious act, but I do not agree with that. What matters is my life. A female friend in her 30s told me how a man had live sex with her after having begun with a condom. She was at that time too emotional to resist. She is now infected with Aids and regrets why she did not choose abstinence.
It is clear to anyone who reads between lines that UNAIDS does not appreciate the ABC model. If, indeed, they supported ABC, their funding would be highest on abstinence.
The Uganda Aids Commission (UAC) has of late been reluctant to do the right thing - pursuing the ABC strategy. Now in their quest to get funding, the UAC bows down to donor demands. They have become more of reporters on Aids than "trouble-shooters". Recently, they reported that Aids is fast spreading among married people without doing anything to protect marriage. They should defend the ABC strategy, especially before the donors. And where principle is involved, be deaf to expedience. What good is there in getting the money and you lose lives?
Let us make our point clear that we are not about to change our strategy. All Ugandans should rise up to defend this cause at any cost.
We also need to fund abstinence activists and come up with programmes to promote marriage to counter the reports of increased infections among married people.
The secret to success is consistency of purpose and this is what every human being should pursue. We can do our job well in one accord and kick Aids out of Uganda.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
It looks like there is more to the incentive to promote condom use than meets the eye. It is really shameful when organizations put money over people just because they make more money promoting condoms than saving lives and good health. It is even more shameful when they actually make money on the disease itself and want to keep the disease from being curable. Condoms may reduce the risk, but they do not eliminate the risk.
Uganda's point was clear: Aids kills, abstain from sex before marriage and be faithful in marriage. Hope was restored and Uganda became a universal focal point on the Aids issue.
However, the consequences of Uganda's approach were not business friendly because condom-makers would not sell. Secondly, some organisations earn their daily bread from HIV/Aids. These advocate the change of the prevention strategy to anything other than ABC.
Today, abstinence is viewed as a primitive and religious act, but I do not agree with that. What matters is my life. A female friend in her 30s told me how a man had live sex with her after having begun with a condom. She was at that time too emotional to resist. She is now infected with Aids and regrets why she did not choose abstinence.
It is clear to anyone who reads between lines that UNAIDS does not appreciate the ABC model. If, indeed, they supported ABC, their funding would be highest on abstinence.
The Uganda Aids Commission (UAC) has of late been reluctant to do the right thing - pursuing the ABC strategy. Now in their quest to get funding, the UAC bows down to donor demands. They have become more of reporters on Aids than "trouble-shooters". Recently, they reported that Aids is fast spreading among married people without doing anything to protect marriage. They should defend the ABC strategy, especially before the donors. And where principle is involved, be deaf to expedience. What good is there in getting the money and you lose lives?
Let us make our point clear that we are not about to change our strategy. All Ugandans should rise up to defend this cause at any cost.
We also need to fund abstinence activists and come up with programmes to promote marriage to counter the reports of increased infections among married people.
The secret to success is consistency of purpose and this is what every human being should pursue. We can do our job well in one accord and kick Aids out of Uganda.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
It looks like there is more to the incentive to promote condom use than meets the eye. It is really shameful when organizations put money over people just because they make more money promoting condoms than saving lives and good health. It is even more shameful when they actually make money on the disease itself and want to keep the disease from being curable. Condoms may reduce the risk, but they do not eliminate the risk.
Friday, 10 August 2007
Is Pedophilia The Next 'Sexual Orientation' To Be Normalized?
by Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
Washington, DC - The "Sexual Orientation" lobbyists are at it again. In mid-May, 2003, members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) met in San Francisco and listened to a psychiatrist argue for the declassification of pedophilia, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR).
Rev Lou Sheldon
Dr. Charles Moser with San Francisco's Institute for the Advance Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) and Dr. Peggy Kleinplatz with the University of Ottawa, presented a paper entitled: "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal." (Moser's IASHS is a Kinsey-based sexologist training group that approves of homosexuality, pornography, sadomasochism, and other deviant sexual practices.)
Moser and Kleinplatz argued that these various sexual interests are culturally or religiously forbidden-and thus should not be considered mental illnesses. They claimed that because psychiatry has no baseline to determine what is normal or abnormal behavior, these sexual behaviors should no longer be stigmatized.
Over the past few years, the APA has done several flip flops on its position on pedophilia as a mental disorder. According to Linda Ames Nicolosi with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the APA's DSM-III maintained that merely acting upon sexual urges against children is sufficient to earn a diagnosis of pedophilia. However, in the DSM-IV, the APA changed the definition. It claimed that only if a person experienced significant stress or social impairment, would his sexual attraction to children be considered pedophilia. In other words, if the person felt no remorse for molesting kids, he wasn't really a pedophile.
Is this really how the APA wants to define what is and isn't a mental disorder? If a person doesn't feel bad about his behavior, then he's normal. Using this definition, one could say that a person who feels no emotional discomfort from having sex with dead people or animals is perfectly normal. Would APA psychiatrists argue that Jeffrey Dahmer was a normal person because he felt no remorse or social impairment for cannibalizing his sex victims?
Has the psychiatric community gone insane? After bad publicity over this watered-down definition of pedophilia, the APA again flip flopped and issued a statement saying that pedophilia was morally wrong.
The debate, however, continues within the APA with the Sexual Orientation lobbyists working feverishly to normalize what most rational humans would consider serious mental disorders and sexual dysfunctions.
The leaders of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), the Christian Boy-Love Forum, Girl Love Garden, and Philia (all pedophile web sites) must be pleased with the debate going on within the APA.
But will children?
Source
Video about pedophile activist
26 minute video interview with pedophile activist
Jemdude's Comments:
I sincerely believe that this will someday be a "sexual orientation" of the future that will be given public acceptance someday. This doesn't mean that I want that to happen. I actually don't. But with the way political correctness works, it's only a matter of time.
Pedophile activists are even "coming out" now. These guys are sick!
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
Washington, DC - The "Sexual Orientation" lobbyists are at it again. In mid-May, 2003, members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) met in San Francisco and listened to a psychiatrist argue for the declassification of pedophilia, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR).
Rev Lou Sheldon
Dr. Charles Moser with San Francisco's Institute for the Advance Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) and Dr. Peggy Kleinplatz with the University of Ottawa, presented a paper entitled: "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal." (Moser's IASHS is a Kinsey-based sexologist training group that approves of homosexuality, pornography, sadomasochism, and other deviant sexual practices.)
Moser and Kleinplatz argued that these various sexual interests are culturally or religiously forbidden-and thus should not be considered mental illnesses. They claimed that because psychiatry has no baseline to determine what is normal or abnormal behavior, these sexual behaviors should no longer be stigmatized.
Over the past few years, the APA has done several flip flops on its position on pedophilia as a mental disorder. According to Linda Ames Nicolosi with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the APA's DSM-III maintained that merely acting upon sexual urges against children is sufficient to earn a diagnosis of pedophilia. However, in the DSM-IV, the APA changed the definition. It claimed that only if a person experienced significant stress or social impairment, would his sexual attraction to children be considered pedophilia. In other words, if the person felt no remorse for molesting kids, he wasn't really a pedophile.
Is this really how the APA wants to define what is and isn't a mental disorder? If a person doesn't feel bad about his behavior, then he's normal. Using this definition, one could say that a person who feels no emotional discomfort from having sex with dead people or animals is perfectly normal. Would APA psychiatrists argue that Jeffrey Dahmer was a normal person because he felt no remorse or social impairment for cannibalizing his sex victims?
Has the psychiatric community gone insane? After bad publicity over this watered-down definition of pedophilia, the APA again flip flopped and issued a statement saying that pedophilia was morally wrong.
The debate, however, continues within the APA with the Sexual Orientation lobbyists working feverishly to normalize what most rational humans would consider serious mental disorders and sexual dysfunctions.
The leaders of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), the Christian Boy-Love Forum, Girl Love Garden, and Philia (all pedophile web sites) must be pleased with the debate going on within the APA.
But will children?
Source
Video about pedophile activist
26 minute video interview with pedophile activist
Jemdude's Comments:
I sincerely believe that this will someday be a "sexual orientation" of the future that will be given public acceptance someday. This doesn't mean that I want that to happen. I actually don't. But with the way political correctness works, it's only a matter of time.
Pedophile activists are even "coming out" now. These guys are sick!
Sunday, 5 August 2007
Jemdude's reporting
I guess those of you who have been reading my blog have been wondering why I report so much about homosexuality? I will tell you. I do it because in the mainstream media, you only hear about homosexuals in the best possible light. You are not allowed to say anything bad about them; even if what you are saying is true.
Much of what I post here about homosexuals are the things that they themselves are doing. So if you don't like what I'm posting here, blame it on the homosexuals. Instead, people tend to take a "shoot the messenger" approach and blame me. But in reality, if the homosexuals were not doing the things that I'm reporting on, I would have nothing bad to report.
Some people like to dismiss what I am reporting by claiming that it's something that can happen to anyone and not just homosexuals. This is not necessarily true. For example, homosexuals are the ones that engage in immoral and illegal activity such as having naked people at gay pride parades, support public washroom sex, and at the same time, tell people they are being "hateful and bigoted" for opposing these activities.
Some people will say to me, "I don't believe you". The problem with this is, I'm reporting actual activities that the homosexuals themselves are doing. So what is there that can't be believed?
There is nothing hateful or bigoted about reporting the truth. If you don't like my reports, then do something about the people that I'm reporting on. In other words, don't put your head in the sand and pretend these things are not happening. If you live in Fort Lauderdale Florida, you need to know about the things I reported on in my last post. Most parents are more concerned about their children's well-being than being politically correct. Are you one of them or not?
Some people on the nostalgia message boards have really changed. If we were back in the 80s and earlier, they would never put up with this PC crap. In fact, if it were possible to go back in time, I'm convinced that I would have a much easier time adjusting than the others who have accepted political correctness. Imagine trying to defend gay rights and gay marriages in the 80s?
So what caused these people to change their views? I think the experiment of the frog and boiling water holds the answer. If you put a frog in boiling water, the frog will jump out. But if you put the frog in cold water and slowly heat it up, the frog will stay there even if it's boiling and die. I believe the same thing is happening here. At this present time, political correctness does not support pedophilia. But will that be the same 15 or more years from now, or even in the not too distant future? Current events are showing that if change happens slowly enough, people will end up supporting the most outrageous issues that they never would have supported in previous times and that's exactly what has happened in our present time.
Much of what I post here about homosexuals are the things that they themselves are doing. So if you don't like what I'm posting here, blame it on the homosexuals. Instead, people tend to take a "shoot the messenger" approach and blame me. But in reality, if the homosexuals were not doing the things that I'm reporting on, I would have nothing bad to report.
Some people like to dismiss what I am reporting by claiming that it's something that can happen to anyone and not just homosexuals. This is not necessarily true. For example, homosexuals are the ones that engage in immoral and illegal activity such as having naked people at gay pride parades, support public washroom sex, and at the same time, tell people they are being "hateful and bigoted" for opposing these activities.
Some people will say to me, "I don't believe you". The problem with this is, I'm reporting actual activities that the homosexuals themselves are doing. So what is there that can't be believed?
There is nothing hateful or bigoted about reporting the truth. If you don't like my reports, then do something about the people that I'm reporting on. In other words, don't put your head in the sand and pretend these things are not happening. If you live in Fort Lauderdale Florida, you need to know about the things I reported on in my last post. Most parents are more concerned about their children's well-being than being politically correct. Are you one of them or not?
Some people on the nostalgia message boards have really changed. If we were back in the 80s and earlier, they would never put up with this PC crap. In fact, if it were possible to go back in time, I'm convinced that I would have a much easier time adjusting than the others who have accepted political correctness. Imagine trying to defend gay rights and gay marriages in the 80s?
So what caused these people to change their views? I think the experiment of the frog and boiling water holds the answer. If you put a frog in boiling water, the frog will jump out. But if you put the frog in cold water and slowly heat it up, the frog will stay there even if it's boiling and die. I believe the same thing is happening here. At this present time, political correctness does not support pedophilia. But will that be the same 15 or more years from now, or even in the not too distant future? Current events are showing that if change happens slowly enough, people will end up supporting the most outrageous issues that they never would have supported in previous times and that's exactly what has happened in our present time.