VANCOUVER, February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer who murdered his 12 year-old daughter Tracy in 1993, has been released on day parole. His lawyer, Jason Gratl, president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, told media that Latimer is "delighted" to be released. Gratl told Canada AM that Latimer "has not wavered" from his decision to kill Tracy, who suffered from a severe form of cerebral palsy. Latimer spent seven years of a ten-year sentence in prison for the murder.
Latimer has never, in any of his trial appearances or in any venue, expressed any remorse for the killing, steadfastly maintaining instead that he acted rightly.
Jim Derksen of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities told CTV News, "I would hope that he does not continue to assert the righteousness of the crime he committed, and that no one would make the mistake of thinking that our society condones the murder of (the disabled)."
Ted Kuntz, a past-president of the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, told CTV News that the danger of the Latimer case was that Canadians had "misplaced" their compassion onto Latimer and not with his daughter. Kuntz said his release is "a message about whether it is OK to kill your child because they have a disability."
The two conditions of his parole say that Latimer must not have "responsibility for, or make decisions for, any individuals who are severely disabled" and he must receive "psychological counselling" to "address any personal/emotional issues".
Latimer has consistently claimed that he killed his daughter, by placing her in his farm truck and connecting the exhaust pipe to the cabin, in order to relieve her suffering. Pro-life advocates, however, have argued that Latimer's interest was in relieving his own difficulties with his daughter's disability. The fact that he has become the figurehead of the Canadian euthanasia movement, they point out, has for many bolstered this conclusion.
Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) called his early release a "tragedy."
"Robert Latimer has expressed no remorse for the murder of his daughter," Hughes said. "He even asked to be released in Ottawa, which the Parole Board has complied with, purportedly so he could lobby the government to accept his point of view."
The Crown brief presented at the second trial in the case said that Tracy "enjoyed outings, one of which was to the circus, where she smiled when the horses went by."
She was receiving treatment for her disabilities and pain but the family refused to have a feeding tube connected so that pain medication could be administered more effectively. Tracy attended a school for disabled children and court documents said she responded to visits by her family, "smiling and looking happy to see them".
The brief said, "There is no dispute that through her life, Tracy at times suffered considerable pain. As well, the quality of her life was limited by her severe disability. But the pain she suffered was not unremitting, and her life had value and quality."
Since his arrest for the gassing of Tracy, Robert Latimer has been the lightening rod for euthanasia activists trying to change Canadian law to allow "mercy killing". A majority of the Canadian mainstream press has lent tacit support to this cause, consistently using terms like "mercy killing" in describing his case. Ian Mulgrew, in an editorial appearing in today's Vancouver Sun called Latimer's imprisonment, "a festering wrong".
"Latimer should have been released long ago," Mulgrew wrote.
But CLC says the release of Latimer sends an "unfortunate but clear signal that the lives of people with disabilities are not equally valued."
This signal was reinforced by comments from Latimer's lawyer who called the decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board, one of "wisdom and compassion."
Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer of CLC said, "Defenseless disabled people need protection from those who would take the law into their own hands and decide who should live and who should die."
Campaign Life Coalition is urging Canadians to call their MPs and ask that protection for the vulnerable handicapped be maintained and strengthened by law.
source
Jemdude's comments:
It is wrong for Robert Latimer to kill his daughter Tracy just because she had a disability. It is also wrong that he only served 7 of the 10 year sentence. In fact, he should have gotten 25 years in jail since the murder was deliberate. This is a scary sign since it implies that people consider the lives of people with disabilities as less valuable than the so called normal people.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Saturday, 23 February 2008
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Top "Gay" Organization Comes Clean: "HIV is a gay disease."
WASHINGTON, February 14, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a public statement last Friday, Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, rattled the homosexual activist community by joining the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pro-family organizations and a growing number of homosexual activists willing to admit that homosexual behavior is both extremely high-risk and primarily responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S.
Addressing the topic of AIDS, Foreman drastically deviated from the "gay" lobby's party line by admitting, "Internally, when these numbers come out, the 'established' gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn't our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."
A little over a year ago, Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center, similarly shocked the "gay" community by stating that, "HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it."
Foreman's admission comes on the heels of a letter from Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America's (CWA) Policy Director for Cultural Issues, inviting Foreman and other homosexual activists to work together in discouraging homosexuals from engaging in the high-risk behaviors researchers recently determined are responsible for the epidemic spread of a potentially deadly strain of staph infection among certain segments of the "gay" community. The CDC has acknowledged that many of those same high-risk behaviors, such as male-male anal sex, are chiefly responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS.
Matt Barber addressed Foreman's admission: "It's extremely encouraging to see Matt Foreman, a homosexual activist who has for so long been in denial about the dangers of the lifestyle he has promoted, publicly coming to terms with the undeniable perils of that lifestyle.
"I only hope he will now stop promoting homosexual conduct and push for other liberal elites, especially those running our public schools, to do the same. Educators must truthfully address the 'gay' lifestyle's potentially deadly consequences.
"It's criminally reckless for the National Education Association and liberal educators to put political correctness and a deceptive political agenda above the lives, health and well-being of America's children. The evidence is there for all to see. 'Gayness' is not about 'who you are,' it's about 'what you do.' The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has now, in effect, acknowledged that reality. Their honesty is refreshing and unexpected," concluded Barber.
source
Jemdude's comments:
Looks like certain people who claim "I don't believe you" will now have to eat their words now that major people in the gay community admit that HIV/AIDS is largely their problem.
I pray that God will free them from this lifestyle since practising it will lead to bad health and even death.
Addressing the topic of AIDS, Foreman drastically deviated from the "gay" lobby's party line by admitting, "Internally, when these numbers come out, the 'established' gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn't our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."
A little over a year ago, Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center, similarly shocked the "gay" community by stating that, "HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it."
Foreman's admission comes on the heels of a letter from Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America's (CWA) Policy Director for Cultural Issues, inviting Foreman and other homosexual activists to work together in discouraging homosexuals from engaging in the high-risk behaviors researchers recently determined are responsible for the epidemic spread of a potentially deadly strain of staph infection among certain segments of the "gay" community. The CDC has acknowledged that many of those same high-risk behaviors, such as male-male anal sex, are chiefly responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS.
Matt Barber addressed Foreman's admission: "It's extremely encouraging to see Matt Foreman, a homosexual activist who has for so long been in denial about the dangers of the lifestyle he has promoted, publicly coming to terms with the undeniable perils of that lifestyle.
"I only hope he will now stop promoting homosexual conduct and push for other liberal elites, especially those running our public schools, to do the same. Educators must truthfully address the 'gay' lifestyle's potentially deadly consequences.
"It's criminally reckless for the National Education Association and liberal educators to put political correctness and a deceptive political agenda above the lives, health and well-being of America's children. The evidence is there for all to see. 'Gayness' is not about 'who you are,' it's about 'what you do.' The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has now, in effect, acknowledged that reality. Their honesty is refreshing and unexpected," concluded Barber.
source
Jemdude's comments:
Looks like certain people who claim "I don't believe you" will now have to eat their words now that major people in the gay community admit that HIV/AIDS is largely their problem.
I pray that God will free them from this lifestyle since practising it will lead to bad health and even death.
Sunday, 20 January 2008
UK Doctors Refuse to Give Hysterectomy to Disabled 15-year-old
"A child should not be modified to fit society but instead that society needs to adapt and become more inclusive of disabled people": SCOPE
By John Connolly
LONDON, January 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Doctors in the UK have decided against performing a hysterectomy on a 15-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, an operation the girl's mother requested to prevent the girl from experiencing the pain of menstruation.
Alison Thorpe, whose daughter Katie suffers from cerebral palsy and cannot walk or talk, made the request to doctors on the basis that menstruation would be an infliction of pain and indignity on Katie. Following an outcry from disabled rights groups, the doctors changed their minds and said they would only operate if there was a medical reason to do so.
"This means that if and when Katie does start her periods she could endure months and months of pain and discomfort before anything is done," said Thorpe. "I think the Trust has bowed down to what they perceived to be public opinion. But I have had overwhelming support from the public, both able-bodied and disabled people. The only opposition has been from disabled rights movements but I would say to them, 'Come and spend a week with me, walk in my shoes'. I've spent 15 years with my daughter, as a mother who loves her dearly I am trying to do the best I can for her."
"I feel the trust misread the so-called lack of support from the minority, groups such as Scope," she continued. "I have not had any contact with any (disability) organization, they do not know me or Katie. They have not provided any support or help for us as a family. I am not surprised by what they said but in the way they said it. They have not been made aware of any of the facts in his case, they made up their mind before hearing the other side of the story, without referring to us. I don't want to take away disabled people's rights, I want to give them choice."
Doctors prescribed contraceptive pills and injections to stop Katie's periods, but Thorpe turned them down because she was afraid Katie might develop thrombosis from them.
The hospital authorities say they cannot justify surgery on the grounds suggested by the mother.
Thorpe, who lives with partner Peter Reynolds, has another daughter, 12-year-old Melissa, who has written to the hospital's non-executive directors in an effort to change their minds out of pity. The 12-year-old's letter recommends surgery once Katie starts her periods.
"It's one of those things, life with a disabled child is one long battle and this is just another step down the ladder," said Thorpe. "It was not unexpected. It means we move to stage two and carrying on fighting."
"An irreversible procedure of this nature that is not clinically necessary is not the right way forward," said Sharon Collins, an executive director at SCOPE, a British organization that works to aid victims of cerebral palsy. "There are so many approaches, this is a completely inappropriate response to the situation. To violate Katie's rights is not the answer."
"Scope does not believe that a child should be modified to fit society but instead that society needs to adapt and become more inclusive of disabled people," said Andy Rickell, another executive director at SCOPE.
"Before we make any decision to operate on a patient we look at each case on an individual basis," said a spokesman for the Mid Essex Hospital Services. "This applies in the case of Katie Thorpe and we have met the family to discuss this. Due to patient confidentiality we are not able to give any more details."
Katie's case is very similar to that of Ashley X, a girl born brain-damaged to parents in the United States. Ashley's parents argued that since she had the mind of a little girl, she should always have a body of a little girl. They used extensive hormone treatment to stunt the 9-year-old's development, and had doctors perform a hysterectomy on her. Doctors also performed a highly controversial procedure to remove her breast buds, a procedure that prompted backlash from disabled-rights organizations who accused the parents of mutilating their daughter for their own convenience.
source
Jemdude's comments:
The UK doctors made the right decision and will not violate the rights of Katie Thorpe who has cerebral palsy. Allison Thorpe, the mother of Katie Thorpe, claims that she wants to give disabled people a choice, but Katie did not choose the operation that her mother Allison wants her to go through. The only thing that Allison may have a point about is that the disability groups should give her and her daughter some assistance in their troubles.
Allison claims that the disability organizations have not heard her side of the issue. I don't think that is necessarily true because they have heard about the "Ashley treatment" and other similar situations in the past. People with disabilities should not be mutilated for parent's or other caretaker's convenience.
By John Connolly
LONDON, January 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Doctors in the UK have decided against performing a hysterectomy on a 15-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, an operation the girl's mother requested to prevent the girl from experiencing the pain of menstruation.
Alison Thorpe, whose daughter Katie suffers from cerebral palsy and cannot walk or talk, made the request to doctors on the basis that menstruation would be an infliction of pain and indignity on Katie. Following an outcry from disabled rights groups, the doctors changed their minds and said they would only operate if there was a medical reason to do so.
"This means that if and when Katie does start her periods she could endure months and months of pain and discomfort before anything is done," said Thorpe. "I think the Trust has bowed down to what they perceived to be public opinion. But I have had overwhelming support from the public, both able-bodied and disabled people. The only opposition has been from disabled rights movements but I would say to them, 'Come and spend a week with me, walk in my shoes'. I've spent 15 years with my daughter, as a mother who loves her dearly I am trying to do the best I can for her."
"I feel the trust misread the so-called lack of support from the minority, groups such as Scope," she continued. "I have not had any contact with any (disability) organization, they do not know me or Katie. They have not provided any support or help for us as a family. I am not surprised by what they said but in the way they said it. They have not been made aware of any of the facts in his case, they made up their mind before hearing the other side of the story, without referring to us. I don't want to take away disabled people's rights, I want to give them choice."
Doctors prescribed contraceptive pills and injections to stop Katie's periods, but Thorpe turned them down because she was afraid Katie might develop thrombosis from them.
The hospital authorities say they cannot justify surgery on the grounds suggested by the mother.
Thorpe, who lives with partner Peter Reynolds, has another daughter, 12-year-old Melissa, who has written to the hospital's non-executive directors in an effort to change their minds out of pity. The 12-year-old's letter recommends surgery once Katie starts her periods.
"It's one of those things, life with a disabled child is one long battle and this is just another step down the ladder," said Thorpe. "It was not unexpected. It means we move to stage two and carrying on fighting."
"An irreversible procedure of this nature that is not clinically necessary is not the right way forward," said Sharon Collins, an executive director at SCOPE, a British organization that works to aid victims of cerebral palsy. "There are so many approaches, this is a completely inappropriate response to the situation. To violate Katie's rights is not the answer."
"Scope does not believe that a child should be modified to fit society but instead that society needs to adapt and become more inclusive of disabled people," said Andy Rickell, another executive director at SCOPE.
"Before we make any decision to operate on a patient we look at each case on an individual basis," said a spokesman for the Mid Essex Hospital Services. "This applies in the case of Katie Thorpe and we have met the family to discuss this. Due to patient confidentiality we are not able to give any more details."
Katie's case is very similar to that of Ashley X, a girl born brain-damaged to parents in the United States. Ashley's parents argued that since she had the mind of a little girl, she should always have a body of a little girl. They used extensive hormone treatment to stunt the 9-year-old's development, and had doctors perform a hysterectomy on her. Doctors also performed a highly controversial procedure to remove her breast buds, a procedure that prompted backlash from disabled-rights organizations who accused the parents of mutilating their daughter for their own convenience.
source
Jemdude's comments:
The UK doctors made the right decision and will not violate the rights of Katie Thorpe who has cerebral palsy. Allison Thorpe, the mother of Katie Thorpe, claims that she wants to give disabled people a choice, but Katie did not choose the operation that her mother Allison wants her to go through. The only thing that Allison may have a point about is that the disability groups should give her and her daughter some assistance in their troubles.
Allison claims that the disability organizations have not heard her side of the issue. I don't think that is necessarily true because they have heard about the "Ashley treatment" and other similar situations in the past. People with disabilities should not be mutilated for parent's or other caretaker's convenience.
Sunday, 6 January 2008
Happy birthday to me!
January 5 was my birthday so if you want to wish me a belated birthday, then feel free to do so.
Friday, 28 December 2007
The Sabbath Day
Someone wrote to me concerning the Sabbath day so I'm going to talk about it here. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada supports the so called Lord's Day Act which would support most businesses to close on Sunday, but does make allowances for those who keep a different day such as the 7th day Sabbath commonly held on Saturday:
NATIONAL DAY OF REST
A weekly twenty-four hour period of business closure should apply to all non-essential services and businesses across Canada. In respect of our Christian heritage, the day of closure should be Sunday. However, reasonable allowance should be made for those who, because of religious convictions, observe a different day of rest (See also 3.1.1),3.1.2, & 6.2.2).
I'm a Seventh Day Adventist so I am very glad that the party recognizes other days people keep holy. Sunday blue laws of the past didn't recognize this and gave Jews, Adventists, and others a hard time. For example, a 7th day Sabbath keeper would have to open for business for 5 days a week while his Sunday keeping competitor would be allowed to be open for 6 days a week. Fortunately, the CHP doesn't support this inconsistency.
Now, the following is NOT a CHP matter but what the Bible says on the Sabbath issue:
There is NO scriptural basis for Sunday observance. I studied the issue extensively before I became an Adventist so I know this. To make a long story short, the Sabbath is one of the unchangeable 10 commandment laws and the church continued to observe it in New Testament times. If you are a Christian who believes that the 10 commandments are still binding on Christians, then you have to observe the 7th day Sabbath. You can't substitute another day for the 7th day Sabbath and expect to still be keeping the 4th commandment. I would go as far as to say that the 4th commandment is the most broken commandment of all of Christiandom because too many people use their own human reasoning to justify observing a different day. If God wanted it changed, He would not have included it as one of the 10 commandments.
NATIONAL DAY OF REST
A weekly twenty-four hour period of business closure should apply to all non-essential services and businesses across Canada. In respect of our Christian heritage, the day of closure should be Sunday. However, reasonable allowance should be made for those who, because of religious convictions, observe a different day of rest (See also 3.1.1),3.1.2, & 6.2.2).
I'm a Seventh Day Adventist so I am very glad that the party recognizes other days people keep holy. Sunday blue laws of the past didn't recognize this and gave Jews, Adventists, and others a hard time. For example, a 7th day Sabbath keeper would have to open for business for 5 days a week while his Sunday keeping competitor would be allowed to be open for 6 days a week. Fortunately, the CHP doesn't support this inconsistency.
Now, the following is NOT a CHP matter but what the Bible says on the Sabbath issue:
There is NO scriptural basis for Sunday observance. I studied the issue extensively before I became an Adventist so I know this. To make a long story short, the Sabbath is one of the unchangeable 10 commandment laws and the church continued to observe it in New Testament times. If you are a Christian who believes that the 10 commandments are still binding on Christians, then you have to observe the 7th day Sabbath. You can't substitute another day for the 7th day Sabbath and expect to still be keeping the 4th commandment. I would go as far as to say that the 4th commandment is the most broken commandment of all of Christiandom because too many people use their own human reasoning to justify observing a different day. If God wanted it changed, He would not have included it as one of the 10 commandments.
Tuesday, 25 December 2007
FLASHBACK: Queen's First Televised Christmas Broadcast Warned about Guarding Morality and Religion
LONDON, December 24, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Fifty years ago this Christmas, the young Queen Elizabeth II broadcast her Christmas message to the nation asking Britons to defend traditional morality in the face of a rapidly changing world. Christmas day 1957 was the first time the Sovereign’s message was broadcast on television. The message has been posted to the online video website YouTube as part of the “official YouTube Channel for the British Monarchy” approved by the Royal Family.
In her 1957 Christmas message, the recently crowned Queen said her address to the nation on television “is just another example of the speed at which things are changing all around us.” She said, “Because of these changes I’m not surprised that many people feel lost and unable to decide what to hold on to and what to discard, how to take advantage of the new life without losing the best of the old.”
She spoke gently of the feelings of many at the time, as Britain continued to rebuild after WWII, that profound changes had come not only in technology but in the meaning and purpose of life. She urged her subjects to retain their “ageless ideals and moral and religious values which were even then under threat from those she called “the cynics”.
“But it’s not the new inventions which are the difficulty. The trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery,” the Queen said.
“They would have religion thrown aside,” she warned, “morality in personal and public life made meaningless, honesty counted as foolishness, and self-interest set up in place of self-restraint.”
The Queen said that with Britain at a “critical moment in our history, we will certainly lose the trust and respect of the world, if we just abandon those fundamental principles, which guided the men and women who built the greatness of this country and commonwealth.”
She said that in these circumstances, the British people “need a special kind of courage.”
“Not the kind needed in battle, but the kind which makes us stand up for everything that we know is right, everything which is true and honest. We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics. So that we can show the world that we’re not afraid of the future.”
Citing the growth of the British Commonwealth, the Queen said that these nations admire Britain “largely because we’ve always tried to do our best to be honest and kindly and because we have tried to stand up for what we believe to be right.”
The young Queen concluded, “ I believe in our qualities and in our strengths. I believe that together we can set an example to the world which will encourage upright people everywhere.”
The page was set up on YouTube with the encouragement of the Royal Family, to display film footage of the activities of “the Family Firm”, some of which date to the days of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra.
Films include footage of the late Queen Mother’s wedding in 1923 and state occasions with all the pomp and circumstance for which the English are famous such as the opening of Parliament. They include also more personal video documentaries of the day to day life of the members of the Royal Family.
Watch the YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBRP-o6Q85s
See other videos on the Royal Channel
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheRoyalChannel &nb...;
source
Religion and morality is something that the "Mighty Markie's" and the "bloviators" of this world have forgotten, in addition to a lot of other people. Like the Queen says, we need to hold on to them and practise them.
In her 1957 Christmas message, the recently crowned Queen said her address to the nation on television “is just another example of the speed at which things are changing all around us.” She said, “Because of these changes I’m not surprised that many people feel lost and unable to decide what to hold on to and what to discard, how to take advantage of the new life without losing the best of the old.”
She spoke gently of the feelings of many at the time, as Britain continued to rebuild after WWII, that profound changes had come not only in technology but in the meaning and purpose of life. She urged her subjects to retain their “ageless ideals and moral and religious values which were even then under threat from those she called “the cynics”.
“But it’s not the new inventions which are the difficulty. The trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery,” the Queen said.
“They would have religion thrown aside,” she warned, “morality in personal and public life made meaningless, honesty counted as foolishness, and self-interest set up in place of self-restraint.”
The Queen said that with Britain at a “critical moment in our history, we will certainly lose the trust and respect of the world, if we just abandon those fundamental principles, which guided the men and women who built the greatness of this country and commonwealth.”
She said that in these circumstances, the British people “need a special kind of courage.”
“Not the kind needed in battle, but the kind which makes us stand up for everything that we know is right, everything which is true and honest. We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics. So that we can show the world that we’re not afraid of the future.”
Citing the growth of the British Commonwealth, the Queen said that these nations admire Britain “largely because we’ve always tried to do our best to be honest and kindly and because we have tried to stand up for what we believe to be right.”
The young Queen concluded, “ I believe in our qualities and in our strengths. I believe that together we can set an example to the world which will encourage upright people everywhere.”
The page was set up on YouTube with the encouragement of the Royal Family, to display film footage of the activities of “the Family Firm”, some of which date to the days of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra.
Films include footage of the late Queen Mother’s wedding in 1923 and state occasions with all the pomp and circumstance for which the English are famous such as the opening of Parliament. They include also more personal video documentaries of the day to day life of the members of the Royal Family.
Watch the YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBRP-o6Q85s
See other videos on the Royal Channel
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheRoyalChannel &nb...;
source
Religion and morality is something that the "Mighty Markie's" and the "bloviators" of this world have forgotten, in addition to a lot of other people. Like the Queen says, we need to hold on to them and practise them.
Sunday, 23 December 2007
Breaking the mirror
Are you a problem solver or a mirror breaker? Many people are either one or the other.
For example, if you look in the mirror and see a speck of dust on your face, do you get rid it by breaking the mirror? Of course not, because even if you can't see it after the mirror is broken, the speck of dust is still there. Therefore, you have to remove the speck of dust from your face in order to deal with that problem. If your parents nag you to clean up your room, how do you solve the problem? Do you tell your parents to shut up, or do you clean your room? The correct answer is to clean your room. If you have any bad habit, do you solve the problem by telling your wife or husband to stop nagging you, or do you do something about the bad habit that is the source of the nagging? The correct answer is to deal with the bad habit.
People who support homosexuality tend to be mirror breakers instead of problem solvers. They erroneously think that if they wipe out all opposition to their lifestyle, that everything will be okay. The reason why they are in error is because Christians (and others with similar views) are not the source of their problems. They are merely pointing out the problem. In other words, getting rid of opposition to homosexuality is not going to solve their problems. The problems will still be there long after they are gone.
Homosexuals like to accuse Christians of hate. But in reality, Christians lovingly tell homosexuals that their lifestyle is going to ruin their health, shorten their lifespan, and most importantly, keep them out of Heaven. Does that mean that Christians want them to suffer? Of course not. That's why Christians lovingly warn them; not because they want to see them suffer, but because they want them to repent, turn from their lifestyle, avoid the penalties, and enjoy the good things God has in store for all of His children.
Here is quote from a link that illustrates this:
source
So to all you homosexuals out there, are you going to do things that will contribute to solving the problem or are you going to continue to break the mirror by blaming other people for your problems and trying to get rid of them?
Here is a link to a former gay and a former lesbian who have decided that they are not going to break any more mirrors.
link
They have decided to repent and change their lifestyle with God's help. The Christian way is not to hate homosexuals, but to hate the sin, but love the sinner. The homosexual lifestyle will ruin your health, shorten your lifespan, and prevent you from entering Heaven. But I don't want that to happen to you and neither does God. Please get help while there is still time for you.
God bless.
For example, if you look in the mirror and see a speck of dust on your face, do you get rid it by breaking the mirror? Of course not, because even if you can't see it after the mirror is broken, the speck of dust is still there. Therefore, you have to remove the speck of dust from your face in order to deal with that problem. If your parents nag you to clean up your room, how do you solve the problem? Do you tell your parents to shut up, or do you clean your room? The correct answer is to clean your room. If you have any bad habit, do you solve the problem by telling your wife or husband to stop nagging you, or do you do something about the bad habit that is the source of the nagging? The correct answer is to deal with the bad habit.
People who support homosexuality tend to be mirror breakers instead of problem solvers. They erroneously think that if they wipe out all opposition to their lifestyle, that everything will be okay. The reason why they are in error is because Christians (and others with similar views) are not the source of their problems. They are merely pointing out the problem. In other words, getting rid of opposition to homosexuality is not going to solve their problems. The problems will still be there long after they are gone.
Homosexuals like to accuse Christians of hate. But in reality, Christians lovingly tell homosexuals that their lifestyle is going to ruin their health, shorten their lifespan, and most importantly, keep them out of Heaven. Does that mean that Christians want them to suffer? Of course not. That's why Christians lovingly warn them; not because they want to see them suffer, but because they want them to repent, turn from their lifestyle, avoid the penalties, and enjoy the good things God has in store for all of His children.
Here is quote from a link that illustrates this:
Do homosexuals have more mental health problems as well?
Yes. Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of:
· Alcohol abuse
· Drug abuse
· Nicotine dependence
· Depression
· Suicide
Isn't it possible that these problems result from society's "discrimination" against homosexuals?
This is the argument usually put forward by pro-homosexual activists. However, there is a simple way to test this hypothesis. If "discrimination" were the cause of homosexuals' mental health problems, then one would expect those problems to be much less common in cities or countries, like San Francisco or the Netherlands, where homosexuality has achieved the highest levels of acceptance.
In fact, the opposite is the case. In places where homosexuality is widely accepted, the physical and mental health problems of homosexuals are greater, not less. This suggests that the real problem lies in the homosexual lifestyle itself, not in society's response to it. In fact, it suggests that increasing the level of social support for homosexual behavior (by, for instance, allowing same-sex couple to "marry") would only increase these problems, not reduce them.
source
So to all you homosexuals out there, are you going to do things that will contribute to solving the problem or are you going to continue to break the mirror by blaming other people for your problems and trying to get rid of them?
Here is a link to a former gay and a former lesbian who have decided that they are not going to break any more mirrors.
link
They have decided to repent and change their lifestyle with God's help. The Christian way is not to hate homosexuals, but to hate the sin, but love the sinner. The homosexual lifestyle will ruin your health, shorten your lifespan, and prevent you from entering Heaven. But I don't want that to happen to you and neither does God. Please get help while there is still time for you.
God bless.
Monday, 17 December 2007
STDs two and a half times More prevalent in lesbians than Normal Women
By Hilary White
December 17, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a sexually transmitted disease that a new study has found has a higher than normal prevalence among practicing lesbians. The peer review journal Sexually Transmitted Infections, is carrying a small study comparing the instances of BV among lesbians with that among heterosexual women. The result was that of 189 heterosexuals and 171 lesbians recruited, 25.7 per cent of lesbians compared with 14.4 per cent of heterosexuals carried the disease.
The study concluded that "Women who identified as lesbians have a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of BV compared with heterosexual women."
BV, although previously considered a "nuisance infection", may cause serious complications if left untreated. These can include increased susceptibility to HIV, and may present other complications for pregnant women. It has also been associated with an increase in the development of Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) following surgical abortion or hysterectomy.
Public health professionals admit that the problem with tracking the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among lesbians is the lack of research. What studies have been undertaken, however, show that most women in such relationships have had sexual relations with at least one man in the past and can transmit possible infections on to other women, sometimes years later. Commonly, such infections can include Chlamydia and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) the infection that has been linked to cervical cancer.
Among the lesbian subculture, it is widely believed that STDs are a problem only for "straight" women and homosexual men. But studies are slowly coming to light that show otherwise.
In Montreal, a study of the lesbian subculture found that nearly 90 per cent had been diagnosed with Chlamydia, and 50 per cent with bacterial vaginosis. The April 2000 edition of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reports of two lesbians diagnosed with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) which is usually caused by untreated Chlamydia or gonorrhea.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
Looks like the idea that lesbians don't have much to worry about when it comes to diseases is false.
December 17, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a sexually transmitted disease that a new study has found has a higher than normal prevalence among practicing lesbians. The peer review journal Sexually Transmitted Infections, is carrying a small study comparing the instances of BV among lesbians with that among heterosexual women. The result was that of 189 heterosexuals and 171 lesbians recruited, 25.7 per cent of lesbians compared with 14.4 per cent of heterosexuals carried the disease.
The study concluded that "Women who identified as lesbians have a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of BV compared with heterosexual women."
BV, although previously considered a "nuisance infection", may cause serious complications if left untreated. These can include increased susceptibility to HIV, and may present other complications for pregnant women. It has also been associated with an increase in the development of Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) following surgical abortion or hysterectomy.
Public health professionals admit that the problem with tracking the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among lesbians is the lack of research. What studies have been undertaken, however, show that most women in such relationships have had sexual relations with at least one man in the past and can transmit possible infections on to other women, sometimes years later. Commonly, such infections can include Chlamydia and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) the infection that has been linked to cervical cancer.
Among the lesbian subculture, it is widely believed that STDs are a problem only for "straight" women and homosexual men. But studies are slowly coming to light that show otherwise.
In Montreal, a study of the lesbian subculture found that nearly 90 per cent had been diagnosed with Chlamydia, and 50 per cent with bacterial vaginosis. The April 2000 edition of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reports of two lesbians diagnosed with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) which is usually caused by untreated Chlamydia or gonorrhea.
source
Jemdude's Comments:
Looks like the idea that lesbians don't have much to worry about when it comes to diseases is false.
Thursday, 13 December 2007
Same-sex assult on freedom of speech
Someone took Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party to the Canadian Human Rights board for comments and articles against homosexuality. Freedom of speech is beginning to disappear in Canada.
You can read more about it in the following article:
link
You can watch the 1 hour interview from the program Insight:
video
You can read more about it in the following article:
link
You can watch the 1 hour interview from the program Insight:
video
Wednesday, 12 December 2007
Why Honey Is Vegan
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".
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".
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.