I cannot believe it but it had to happen, some people have no idea what a straight line is in our country. Now we have mother's selling their daughter's, hang your heads in shame all you who allowed prostitution to be legalised.
MEDIA RELEASE
28 September 2007
Flawed Prostitution Law Results in Mother ‘Trading’ 16 y/o Daughter
Family First is disgusted with the actions of a mother who organised a prostitution ‘transaction’ between her 16 year old
daughter and a man, but say that this is an expected outcome of a flawed Act.
“Politicians who voted for this ideologically flawed bill which decriminalized prostitution should hang their heads in shame,
along with this mother,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“Along with an increase in street prostitution, brothels operating in residential areas, the association of brothels and
prostitutes with drugs, alcohol, and used condoms littering the area, we now have increased teenage prostitution
(involving girls reportedly as young as 11), and worse still, a parent making financial gain from ‘selling’ their daughter.”
“This is no different to the horrendous stories we hear of child prostitution and trafficking in Asian countries,” says Mr
McCoskrie. “It is child abuse of the worst kind.”
“It is also a disgrace that a man who purchases sex from the mother of a 16 year old by paying with drugs is not
prosecuted. The best way to protect prostitutes is to prosecute the buyer (as evidenced in other countries.)”
“And despite attempts by Manukau City Council to gain control over this type of behaviour, politicians continue to block
attempts to support local communities. MP’s need a reality check on just how destructive this industry is.”
The Prostitution Law Review Committee’s report on the State of the Sex Industry in NZ, tabled in Parliament in 2005
found a 40% increase in sex workers since 2001, and a growing trend towards street prostitution (up from 3% in 2001 to
11% in 2004).
The report also identified about 200 prostitutes under the age of 18.
“The decriminalisation of prostitution has failed prostitutes by encouraging them to think that prostitution can be safe –
which it can never be. But now the law is also failing our communities and young people. We must change it before it is
too late and our children become victims, similar to our teenagers.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Fair Facts and (Un)Fairfax
Being booted off a message board on TradeMe is to me a censorship that I never thought could happen in New Zealand. I have requested again to be reinstated after being removed twice for posting my opinion just as everyone else does on there. For some reason though I am the only one that has been removed. Or that is what I thought, seemingly many people are removed, yet still, contentious topics are discussed today as it should be, but why are just some of us removed??? Here is the latest reply to my request for reinstatement...
Thanks for contacting us.
I've looked at the history of your behaviour on the message boards and see that we've had to remove 26 posts because they didn't comply with our site rules. In particular you were posting contentious topics that generated a number of complaints from members of the community.
You were given a temporary suspension from the message boards because of this.
When your message board privileges were restored you were advised not to discuss contentious issues yet you continued to do this. As is our standard procedure if you continue to violate message board rules after you've been suspended you are permanently banned from the message board. I'm sorry for any frustration this may cause.
If you have any further questions or if I can be of any further help please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Jacqueline
Trade Me Support
Thanks for contacting us.
I've looked at the history of your behaviour on the message boards and see that we've had to remove 26 posts because they didn't comply with our site rules. In particular you were posting contentious topics that generated a number of complaints from members of the community.
You were given a temporary suspension from the message boards because of this.
When your message board privileges were restored you were advised not to discuss contentious issues yet you continued to do this. As is our standard procedure if you continue to violate message board rules after you've been suspended you are permanently banned from the message board. I'm sorry for any frustration this may cause.
If you have any further questions or if I can be of any further help please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Jacqueline
Trade Me Support
Sunday, September 30, 2007
No Right To Silence You
URGENT!! Please copy this post and email it to everyone you know!
Free Speech Coalition Launched
Friday, 28 September 2007, 11:20 am
The Free Speech Coalition, a group dedicated to stopping the draconian Electoral Finance Bill has publicly launched itself today.
We agree with the Human Rights Commission and the New Zealand Law Society that this bill threatens the human rights of all New Zealanders and is so flawed that it should be stopped, not amended. A replacement Bill should be introduced after there has been public consultation and debate on the key issues - something totally absent from the current Bill.
A copy of the e-mail sent out to potential supporters is attached below. Most of the information on what we hope to achieve is in the e-mail and on our website at www.killthebill.org.nz
http://www.killthebill.org.nz/
If you send an email like this to a friend after January 1, 2008, you'll be breaking the law. Under the Government's Electoral Finance Bill currently before Parliament, you'll be fined up to $10,000, and even be risking a jail term if you do it deliberately.
Why?
Simply because the email dares to discuss how we run our society.
Yes, this Bill is that sinister.
That's why I'm asking for your help to Kill the Bill. If we don't kill it, then on New Year's Day your Government will strip you of your right to criticise the Government, other parties, MPs and policies you don't like.
The Bill has been described by several lawyers as a serious breach of the Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Commission has labeled the Bill as an infringement of human rights, that will discourage participation in the election process and suppress freedom of expression. In an almost unprecedented step, the New Zealand Law Society has called for the Bill to be stopped as it will curtail the legitimate expressions of opinions and represents a backward step in the integrity of democracy in New Zealand.
In an Orwellian twist, the Government claims the purpose of the Bill is to promote participation by the public in parliamentary democracy. The Human Rights Commission labels this a mockery of the actual likely effect of the Bill.
Despite this, the parties that voted for it - Labour, NZ First, Greens and United Future - won't give a commitment to stop it.
In fact, journalists report that the Government is determined to pass it.
The Bill will regulate political speech to an extent unheard of in New Zealand history:
* The definition of a political advertisement is expanded to be "any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as taking a position on a proposition with which one or more parties or one or more candidates is associated." Such ads will be highly regulated.
* You'll be banned from expressing your view on any political issue associated with a party or candidate unless you swear an oath via a statutory declaration that you will not spend more than $5,000 in the whole of election year in publishing your view.
* Unincorporated groups which have even a single member aged under 18, such as churches, will be banned from spending more than $5,000 a year - or $100 a week - on political advocacy.
* What sort of draconian activities does the Bill seek to protect us from? Handing out leaflets along the course of a protest march. Sending out a press release. Operating a website (other than a non-commercial blog). Displaying placards at a demonstration. Posting clips on YouTube. Putting up posters. That's right, all the things democratic societies call lawful expressions of free speech.
* Commercial advertising that conflicts with the views of a political party will not be allowed beyond a limit of $60,000 a year. How much evil propaganda will that buy you? About two full page newspaper ads in the NZ Herald.
* Political parties will be banned from running "issue" ads that oppose Government policies. For the whole of election year. They can only run ads that directly ask for votes.
Say your group wants to spend more than $5,000 a year publicising political issues. (Remember, that's anything to do with how we run our society.) In that case, the Government sees you as trouble. So you'll have to register with the Government. You'll also have to tell the Government who gave you your money. And in any case, you'll be banned from spending more than $60,000 of it in election year.
By now I hope you're feeling as outraged about this as I am.
If so, please help us Kill the Bill - while we still can.
A group of us have launched the Free Speech Coalition. We want it to be a focal point for all individuals and organizations opposed to the Electoral Finance Bill.
We plan to run an ad campaign. Our ads will educate New Zealanders about this Government's unprecedented assault on our cherished freedom of speech.
We've got a creative team waiting to get cracking. But we need your support. Specifically, your money.
Please pass this e-mail on to any of your friends and colleagues who you think will want to know about this Bill and do something about it.
You can donate instantly online at www.killthebill.org.nz . You can also donate via Internet Banking (BNZ 02-0500-0908920-00) or by sending a cheque to the Free Speech Coalition, PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington.
With your support we can make a difference. It would be tragic to have the Bill pass into law - and your right to free speech pass into history - just because everyone assumed that someone else would fight it.
Remember: if the bill is passed, even a harmless e-mail like this one will soon be illegal. That's reason enough to Kill the Bill.
Free Speech Coalition Launched
Friday, 28 September 2007, 11:20 am
The Free Speech Coalition, a group dedicated to stopping the draconian Electoral Finance Bill has publicly launched itself today.
We agree with the Human Rights Commission and the New Zealand Law Society that this bill threatens the human rights of all New Zealanders and is so flawed that it should be stopped, not amended. A replacement Bill should be introduced after there has been public consultation and debate on the key issues - something totally absent from the current Bill.
A copy of the e-mail sent out to potential supporters is attached below. Most of the information on what we hope to achieve is in the e-mail and on our website at www.killthebill.org.nz
http://www.killthebill.org.nz/
If you send an email like this to a friend after January 1, 2008, you'll be breaking the law. Under the Government's Electoral Finance Bill currently before Parliament, you'll be fined up to $10,000, and even be risking a jail term if you do it deliberately.
Why?
Simply because the email dares to discuss how we run our society.
Yes, this Bill is that sinister.
That's why I'm asking for your help to Kill the Bill. If we don't kill it, then on New Year's Day your Government will strip you of your right to criticise the Government, other parties, MPs and policies you don't like.
The Bill has been described by several lawyers as a serious breach of the Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Commission has labeled the Bill as an infringement of human rights, that will discourage participation in the election process and suppress freedom of expression. In an almost unprecedented step, the New Zealand Law Society has called for the Bill to be stopped as it will curtail the legitimate expressions of opinions and represents a backward step in the integrity of democracy in New Zealand.
In an Orwellian twist, the Government claims the purpose of the Bill is to promote participation by the public in parliamentary democracy. The Human Rights Commission labels this a mockery of the actual likely effect of the Bill.
Despite this, the parties that voted for it - Labour, NZ First, Greens and United Future - won't give a commitment to stop it.
In fact, journalists report that the Government is determined to pass it.
The Bill will regulate political speech to an extent unheard of in New Zealand history:
* The definition of a political advertisement is expanded to be "any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as taking a position on a proposition with which one or more parties or one or more candidates is associated." Such ads will be highly regulated.
* You'll be banned from expressing your view on any political issue associated with a party or candidate unless you swear an oath via a statutory declaration that you will not spend more than $5,000 in the whole of election year in publishing your view.
* Unincorporated groups which have even a single member aged under 18, such as churches, will be banned from spending more than $5,000 a year - or $100 a week - on political advocacy.
* What sort of draconian activities does the Bill seek to protect us from? Handing out leaflets along the course of a protest march. Sending out a press release. Operating a website (other than a non-commercial blog). Displaying placards at a demonstration. Posting clips on YouTube. Putting up posters. That's right, all the things democratic societies call lawful expressions of free speech.
* Commercial advertising that conflicts with the views of a political party will not be allowed beyond a limit of $60,000 a year. How much evil propaganda will that buy you? About two full page newspaper ads in the NZ Herald.
* Political parties will be banned from running "issue" ads that oppose Government policies. For the whole of election year. They can only run ads that directly ask for votes.
Say your group wants to spend more than $5,000 a year publicising political issues. (Remember, that's anything to do with how we run our society.) In that case, the Government sees you as trouble. So you'll have to register with the Government. You'll also have to tell the Government who gave you your money. And in any case, you'll be banned from spending more than $60,000 of it in election year.
By now I hope you're feeling as outraged about this as I am.
If so, please help us Kill the Bill - while we still can.
A group of us have launched the Free Speech Coalition. We want it to be a focal point for all individuals and organizations opposed to the Electoral Finance Bill.
We plan to run an ad campaign. Our ads will educate New Zealanders about this Government's unprecedented assault on our cherished freedom of speech.
We've got a creative team waiting to get cracking. But we need your support. Specifically, your money.
Please pass this e-mail on to any of your friends and colleagues who you think will want to know about this Bill and do something about it.
You can donate instantly online at www.killthebill.org.nz . You can also donate via Internet Banking (BNZ 02-0500-0908920-00) or by sending a cheque to the Free Speech Coalition, PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington.
With your support we can make a difference. It would be tragic to have the Bill pass into law - and your right to free speech pass into history - just because everyone assumed that someone else would fight it.
Remember: if the bill is passed, even a harmless e-mail like this one will soon be illegal. That's reason enough to Kill the Bill.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Balancing Act
Christian radio station forced to give time to other faiths
Ottawa's CHRI rails against CRTC's 'ridiculous' balance policy
Jennifer Green
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, July 28, 2007
When is a Christian radio station not a Christian radio station? For the hour or so a day that it must air the views of other faiths to satisfy the CRTC's "balance" policy.
"It's ridiculous," says Bob Du Broy, vice-president of Ottawa's CHRI Christian music station. "It's like asking a rock station to play an hour of classical music." CHRI's announcers also find themselves in the bizarre situation of working for a Christian station without being able to talk much about Christianity for fear of triggering the "balance" issue.
Because CHRI 99.1 FM plays mostly music, its requirements for offsetting Christian proselytizing have been minimal at just over 30 minutes a week.
But now Mr. Du Broy wants to start a new Christian station, WORD FM, aimed at the growing radio audience older than 45, many of whom want Christian programming, but not the racket of rock music.
It would offer more than two-thirds spoken-word broadcasting with programs such as Billy Graham's Hour of Decision and James Dobson's Focus Weekend.
Religious music needn't be offset with other faiths, but the broadcast regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, does require that spoken-word programming offer differing views. However, it is up to the applicant to propose just how this would be done.
Denis Carmel, the CRTC's director of public relations, said "It's unlikely that a single-faith station could be balanced (without some programming on other faiths)." Is it possible to get a licence without outside faith programming? "I'm not going to respond to that." Mr. Du Broy figures the CRTC will want at least one hour and 11 minutes a day devoted to other faiths. To get that figure, he multiplied 67 per cent (the amount of talking on air) by 7.35 per cent (number of non-Christians in the Ottawa area) to come up with 4.9 per cent of the 24-hour broadcast day, or 71 minutes.
The problem is, Christian radio listeners don't always care for the outside programming.
Many have enjoyed CHRI's Reflections on the Torah but Their Days, five-minute segments on Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, have been less of a hit.
Mr. Du Broy says in his submission to the CRTC, "... on a regular basis we receive complaints from core listeners that a non-Christian message does not belong on a Christian radio station. Many listeners have told us that it is too good and may seduce young people into following other religions." Counterbalancing religious points of view may sound like taking political correctness to extremes, but it comes out of a tumultuous history of religious broadcasting, stretching back the 1920s, when fiery radio preachers thought nothing of insulting other faiths over the airwaves.
A royal commission banned religious broadcasting, formed the forerunner of the CBC, and established strong federal control over the airwaves until the 1980s when the broadcast universe exploded with new channels and radio frequencies.
In 1993, the CRTC revisited its religious broadcasting policy, with long, heartfelt discussion of the requirements of balance. Ultimately, it decided to ease some requirements, particularly for specialty cable channels, but some commissioners dissented, cautioning: "We are disturbed by the extent of social, cultural, and racial intolerance which is often rooted in religious intolerance. One need only look to Bosnia, the Middle East, India, Northern Ireland, South Africa, and other world 'trouble spots' to observe this phenomenon in its most violent form. Such cultural and racial intolerance is less dramatic and violent, but no less real, in Canada." The United States had a similar "fairness" doctrine which was repealed in 1987. However, as conservative radio programs dominate the airwaves, there has been some talk recently of bringing it back, much to the alarm of some Christians, appalled at the thought of having to air the views of gay rights activists or secularists.
Applications to the CRTC for the 99.7 frequency that Mr. Du Broy hopes to land close Aug. 21.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007
Close
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Ottawa's CHRI rails against CRTC's 'ridiculous' balance policy
Jennifer Green
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, July 28, 2007
When is a Christian radio station not a Christian radio station? For the hour or so a day that it must air the views of other faiths to satisfy the CRTC's "balance" policy.
"It's ridiculous," says Bob Du Broy, vice-president of Ottawa's CHRI Christian music station. "It's like asking a rock station to play an hour of classical music." CHRI's announcers also find themselves in the bizarre situation of working for a Christian station without being able to talk much about Christianity for fear of triggering the "balance" issue.
Because CHRI 99.1 FM plays mostly music, its requirements for offsetting Christian proselytizing have been minimal at just over 30 minutes a week.
But now Mr. Du Broy wants to start a new Christian station, WORD FM, aimed at the growing radio audience older than 45, many of whom want Christian programming, but not the racket of rock music.
It would offer more than two-thirds spoken-word broadcasting with programs such as Billy Graham's Hour of Decision and James Dobson's Focus Weekend.
Religious music needn't be offset with other faiths, but the broadcast regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, does require that spoken-word programming offer differing views. However, it is up to the applicant to propose just how this would be done.
Denis Carmel, the CRTC's director of public relations, said "It's unlikely that a single-faith station could be balanced (without some programming on other faiths)." Is it possible to get a licence without outside faith programming? "I'm not going to respond to that." Mr. Du Broy figures the CRTC will want at least one hour and 11 minutes a day devoted to other faiths. To get that figure, he multiplied 67 per cent (the amount of talking on air) by 7.35 per cent (number of non-Christians in the Ottawa area) to come up with 4.9 per cent of the 24-hour broadcast day, or 71 minutes.
The problem is, Christian radio listeners don't always care for the outside programming.
Many have enjoyed CHRI's Reflections on the Torah but Their Days, five-minute segments on Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, have been less of a hit.
Mr. Du Broy says in his submission to the CRTC, "... on a regular basis we receive complaints from core listeners that a non-Christian message does not belong on a Christian radio station. Many listeners have told us that it is too good and may seduce young people into following other religions." Counterbalancing religious points of view may sound like taking political correctness to extremes, but it comes out of a tumultuous history of religious broadcasting, stretching back the 1920s, when fiery radio preachers thought nothing of insulting other faiths over the airwaves.
A royal commission banned religious broadcasting, formed the forerunner of the CBC, and established strong federal control over the airwaves until the 1980s when the broadcast universe exploded with new channels and radio frequencies.
In 1993, the CRTC revisited its religious broadcasting policy, with long, heartfelt discussion of the requirements of balance. Ultimately, it decided to ease some requirements, particularly for specialty cable channels, but some commissioners dissented, cautioning: "We are disturbed by the extent of social, cultural, and racial intolerance which is often rooted in religious intolerance. One need only look to Bosnia, the Middle East, India, Northern Ireland, South Africa, and other world 'trouble spots' to observe this phenomenon in its most violent form. Such cultural and racial intolerance is less dramatic and violent, but no less real, in Canada." The United States had a similar "fairness" doctrine which was repealed in 1987. However, as conservative radio programs dominate the airwaves, there has been some talk recently of bringing it back, much to the alarm of some Christians, appalled at the thought of having to air the views of gay rights activists or secularists.
Applications to the CRTC for the 99.7 frequency that Mr. Du Broy hopes to land close Aug. 21.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007
Close
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Not a Laodicean Believer
Coach Dave Daubenmire
September 20, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
Is anyone besides me tired of being so nice?
That is what they are trying to convince us to be you know….nice.
Funny, isn’t it? You can search the Bible through and through and you will be hard-pressed to find that adjective in reference to Christianity. Somewhere along the line we have become convinced that the greatest thing they can ever say about you as a Christian is that you are a “nice” man.
Nice may fit a Bible study, or a vacation with your family, but it is not very useful in war. That is one of the difficult things I am having trouble teaching our Christian football players. Nice has no place on the football field. Character is important, courage is demanded, tenacity fits, but being nice…”pleasing; agreeable; delightful” is a sure-fire way to get the snot knocked out of you. (Is it okay to say snot? Probably doesn’t sound very “nice” to some folks.)
Nice also has no place in the cultural war. “All’s fair in love and war” the old saying goes. Well, for those of you who want to “love” your enemies and those who want to “war” against them; it is time to take off the gloves.
The media has been after me a bit lately. They hate the fact that I am not one of those “nice” Christians that the Devil is trying to convince us we must be. Have you ever noticed that? The Devil’s kids are the one always calling the names and explaining to us how a Christian should act. Most Christians can’t wait to perform penance for not meeting the Devil’s standards of Christian-behavior.
Hey, it is a free country. They have a right to voice their opinion. But why is it that so much of the church-world takes its cue from what they hear from the media? Does anyone want to debate who is in control of what we read and hear? The Scriptures call Satan the prince of the power of the air. TV and radio waves travel in the air.
Here’s what I don’t get. If it is really a war for the souls of men, and I believe that it is, why are we so focused on being “nice” to the Devil and his evil aides? He is the father, you know, of the ones who are lost. Why do we let the Devil’s minions tell us how a Christian should behave?
It’s time we stopped apologizing to the Devil.
A few months ago I wrote about going to the gay pride parade in Columbus. We were shocked to see so many churches marching in the parade in support of sodomy and those who practice it. I was struck by how deceived those churches were. See, they were convinced that if they would just be “nice” to those who were perishing in that lifestyle, then we would all be able to enjoy the love of Jesus together. In fact, the homosexual crowd (the Devil’s “kids”) applauded the ‘tolerant” churches as they marched. They spit at those of us who carried the Truth of God’s love to them. Sometimes God’s love hurts.
Is it just me or was there something wrong with that picture? The Devil’s “kids” applauding the church….sort of like a Buckeye fan rooting for Michigan. But that isn’t what really amazes me. What honks my horn is the number of churches who are mad at me because we haven’t been nice to the Devil. We shouldn’t do that, I guess -- oppose the Devil and his followers. Just doesn’t seem very Christ-like….er…nice. “Be nice, Coach. Please be nice. You are making Christians look bad.”
Yep. The Devil says we’re mean and that Christians shouldn’t be mean. Most Christians follow his advice. Gotta be nice, you know.
Well, a few of my pastor friends (yes I still have a few friends who are pastors) decided that we have been pointing our guns at the wrong crowd. Instead of spending their time calling the lost to account they made the decision to call “the church” to account. How did they do it? Well, they went to a couple of churches who had marched in the sodomite-parade. It seems one lesbian-pastor did not appreciate her fellow brethren-of-the-cloth calling her to account for preaching a different gospel. It was just too….well….mean.
So how did she respond? She called her daddy’s boys in the media and told them how un-nice these mean Christians had been to her. Next thing you know, three-different publications had done stories on how these “hateful” Christians had “crashed” the services of these nice, loving, defenseless, homosexual-Christians.
You see, the media wants you to know that Bible-believing Christians are hateful but homosexual-Christians are loving. That is the Devil’s mantra. Who do you think the cowardly-church believes? The letters to the editor in the following days was filled with letters from other “nice” Christians who wanted to make sure that the Devil knew that they were sorry that some of God’s children played mean. That’s not very Christ-like, you know. Christians must play by the rules….even if the Devil makes them.
But God is gracious. He told us it was a war. He told us they would hate us. He told us He would never leave us or forsake us. Every attack of the enemy is a chance to stand-up for Jesus. Stop sucking on your thumb when the attack comes. The Devil doesn’t play nice. He’s counting on us to do that.
For two weeks I endured the assault of the “nicer-than-Coach” Christians and their apologies to the Devil in the local papers. They just couldn’t wait to apologize to the Devil for my opposition to his kids’ behavior. By the way, did I point out that I wasn’t even involved in going to the churches? It didn’t matter. The Devil just wanted to make sure that everyone knew Christians like me were mean, and that anyone else who decided to speak up for Jesus could expect the same public smearing.
I hate to sound so prideful, but the attack just egged me on. I am not ignorant of his devices. I know when we have hit a nerve. I refuse to apologize to the Devil.
So, I wrote a letter-to-the-editor and to my amazement, they printed it. The Columbus Dispatch, the largest home-newspaper in Ohio, printed my letter at the top of the opinion page. I refused to do what so many do when attacked by the media. I wasn’t going to grovel for their approval, slobbering how sorry I was, how I had miss-spoken, and how I would soon be entering diversity training to learn to be nicer. The Lord gave me an opportunity to share the Gospel with those who are perishing as well as those who apologize to those who are perishing. Here is what the Lord allowed me to say.
I write not to defend myself, but rather to clarify the continued drive-by reporting of those at the Columbus Dispatch.
The Aug. 17 Dispatch article "Anti-gay activists crash worship services" was filled with inaccuracies and untruths. To set the record straight: Two ministers of the Gospel, with others from their congregation, visited two gay-affirming churches with the message that homosexuality and Christianity are incompatible. It is my understanding, as I was not there, that after the service they met privately with the pastor at each church to call the pastor to account for teaching doctrine that is not supported by Scripture. For The Dispatch to use the term "crashed" is journalistic fraud designed to incite a negative response by Dispatch readers.
I stand in support of Christian Ministers holding others who claim to be Christian Ministers accountable to the Word of God. It is the way the church body should operate. Telling a gay-man or gay-woman that God looks the other way as He winks at their particular sin is not the loving response a homosexual should hear from any minister of the Gospel. The two pastors who spoke truth to their gay-affirming fellow ministers did exactly what the Scriptures require they do according to Mathew 18:15-17:
*
Go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.
*
If he will not listen, take one or two others along.
*
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.
*
If he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
The condition of American-Christianity would be much better if more ministers of the Gospel held those in Scriptural error more accountable. I also believe it the duty of the scribes of our times to be more respectful of the truth- regardless of their personal agendas.
Thank God for the brave men who would speak the truth face-to-face rather than publicly defame the integrity of another. I support the brave pastors who stood for the vast majority of Christendom who agree with their theology.
I thank The Dispatch for the unwarranted coverage of the event and their obvious attempt to defame two brave Christian pastors. I just wanted to be sure that I did not receive credit for something someone else had done.
I know, I know. I’m not very nice.
Let’s stop apologizing to the Devil!
Order the CDs here.
Do you think like a Christian or a humanist? Did the Founders really separate Church and State? Is Judicial tyranny ruining America? Check out these great teachings by the Coach.
© 2007 Dave Daubenmire - All Rights Reserved
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave85.htm
September 20, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
Is anyone besides me tired of being so nice?
That is what they are trying to convince us to be you know….nice.
Funny, isn’t it? You can search the Bible through and through and you will be hard-pressed to find that adjective in reference to Christianity. Somewhere along the line we have become convinced that the greatest thing they can ever say about you as a Christian is that you are a “nice” man.
Nice may fit a Bible study, or a vacation with your family, but it is not very useful in war. That is one of the difficult things I am having trouble teaching our Christian football players. Nice has no place on the football field. Character is important, courage is demanded, tenacity fits, but being nice…”pleasing; agreeable; delightful” is a sure-fire way to get the snot knocked out of you. (Is it okay to say snot? Probably doesn’t sound very “nice” to some folks.)
Nice also has no place in the cultural war. “All’s fair in love and war” the old saying goes. Well, for those of you who want to “love” your enemies and those who want to “war” against them; it is time to take off the gloves.
The media has been after me a bit lately. They hate the fact that I am not one of those “nice” Christians that the Devil is trying to convince us we must be. Have you ever noticed that? The Devil’s kids are the one always calling the names and explaining to us how a Christian should act. Most Christians can’t wait to perform penance for not meeting the Devil’s standards of Christian-behavior.
Hey, it is a free country. They have a right to voice their opinion. But why is it that so much of the church-world takes its cue from what they hear from the media? Does anyone want to debate who is in control of what we read and hear? The Scriptures call Satan the prince of the power of the air. TV and radio waves travel in the air.
Here’s what I don’t get. If it is really a war for the souls of men, and I believe that it is, why are we so focused on being “nice” to the Devil and his evil aides? He is the father, you know, of the ones who are lost. Why do we let the Devil’s minions tell us how a Christian should behave?
It’s time we stopped apologizing to the Devil.
A few months ago I wrote about going to the gay pride parade in Columbus. We were shocked to see so many churches marching in the parade in support of sodomy and those who practice it. I was struck by how deceived those churches were. See, they were convinced that if they would just be “nice” to those who were perishing in that lifestyle, then we would all be able to enjoy the love of Jesus together. In fact, the homosexual crowd (the Devil’s “kids”) applauded the ‘tolerant” churches as they marched. They spit at those of us who carried the Truth of God’s love to them. Sometimes God’s love hurts.
Is it just me or was there something wrong with that picture? The Devil’s “kids” applauding the church….sort of like a Buckeye fan rooting for Michigan. But that isn’t what really amazes me. What honks my horn is the number of churches who are mad at me because we haven’t been nice to the Devil. We shouldn’t do that, I guess -- oppose the Devil and his followers. Just doesn’t seem very Christ-like….er…nice. “Be nice, Coach. Please be nice. You are making Christians look bad.”
Yep. The Devil says we’re mean and that Christians shouldn’t be mean. Most Christians follow his advice. Gotta be nice, you know.
Well, a few of my pastor friends (yes I still have a few friends who are pastors) decided that we have been pointing our guns at the wrong crowd. Instead of spending their time calling the lost to account they made the decision to call “the church” to account. How did they do it? Well, they went to a couple of churches who had marched in the sodomite-parade. It seems one lesbian-pastor did not appreciate her fellow brethren-of-the-cloth calling her to account for preaching a different gospel. It was just too….well….mean.
So how did she respond? She called her daddy’s boys in the media and told them how un-nice these mean Christians had been to her. Next thing you know, three-different publications had done stories on how these “hateful” Christians had “crashed” the services of these nice, loving, defenseless, homosexual-Christians.
You see, the media wants you to know that Bible-believing Christians are hateful but homosexual-Christians are loving. That is the Devil’s mantra. Who do you think the cowardly-church believes? The letters to the editor in the following days was filled with letters from other “nice” Christians who wanted to make sure that the Devil knew that they were sorry that some of God’s children played mean. That’s not very Christ-like, you know. Christians must play by the rules….even if the Devil makes them.
But God is gracious. He told us it was a war. He told us they would hate us. He told us He would never leave us or forsake us. Every attack of the enemy is a chance to stand-up for Jesus. Stop sucking on your thumb when the attack comes. The Devil doesn’t play nice. He’s counting on us to do that.
For two weeks I endured the assault of the “nicer-than-Coach” Christians and their apologies to the Devil in the local papers. They just couldn’t wait to apologize to the Devil for my opposition to his kids’ behavior. By the way, did I point out that I wasn’t even involved in going to the churches? It didn’t matter. The Devil just wanted to make sure that everyone knew Christians like me were mean, and that anyone else who decided to speak up for Jesus could expect the same public smearing.
I hate to sound so prideful, but the attack just egged me on. I am not ignorant of his devices. I know when we have hit a nerve. I refuse to apologize to the Devil.
So, I wrote a letter-to-the-editor and to my amazement, they printed it. The Columbus Dispatch, the largest home-newspaper in Ohio, printed my letter at the top of the opinion page. I refused to do what so many do when attacked by the media. I wasn’t going to grovel for their approval, slobbering how sorry I was, how I had miss-spoken, and how I would soon be entering diversity training to learn to be nicer. The Lord gave me an opportunity to share the Gospel with those who are perishing as well as those who apologize to those who are perishing. Here is what the Lord allowed me to say.
I write not to defend myself, but rather to clarify the continued drive-by reporting of those at the Columbus Dispatch.
The Aug. 17 Dispatch article "Anti-gay activists crash worship services" was filled with inaccuracies and untruths. To set the record straight: Two ministers of the Gospel, with others from their congregation, visited two gay-affirming churches with the message that homosexuality and Christianity are incompatible. It is my understanding, as I was not there, that after the service they met privately with the pastor at each church to call the pastor to account for teaching doctrine that is not supported by Scripture. For The Dispatch to use the term "crashed" is journalistic fraud designed to incite a negative response by Dispatch readers.
I stand in support of Christian Ministers holding others who claim to be Christian Ministers accountable to the Word of God. It is the way the church body should operate. Telling a gay-man or gay-woman that God looks the other way as He winks at their particular sin is not the loving response a homosexual should hear from any minister of the Gospel. The two pastors who spoke truth to their gay-affirming fellow ministers did exactly what the Scriptures require they do according to Mathew 18:15-17:
*
Go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.
*
If he will not listen, take one or two others along.
*
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.
*
If he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
The condition of American-Christianity would be much better if more ministers of the Gospel held those in Scriptural error more accountable. I also believe it the duty of the scribes of our times to be more respectful of the truth- regardless of their personal agendas.
Thank God for the brave men who would speak the truth face-to-face rather than publicly defame the integrity of another. I support the brave pastors who stood for the vast majority of Christendom who agree with their theology.
I thank The Dispatch for the unwarranted coverage of the event and their obvious attempt to defame two brave Christian pastors. I just wanted to be sure that I did not receive credit for something someone else had done.
I know, I know. I’m not very nice.
Let’s stop apologizing to the Devil!
Order the CDs here.
Do you think like a Christian or a humanist? Did the Founders really separate Church and State? Is Judicial tyranny ruining America? Check out these great teachings by the Coach.
© 2007 Dave Daubenmire - All Rights Reserved
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave85.htm
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Lord Will Do It
FAITH COMES TO THE PILBARA
A reporter for the Western Australian wrote this account of the revival amongst the Aboriginal People
A religious revival among Aboriginal people in the remote Northwest town of Nullagine - once labelled the arrest capital of Australia has drastically reduced the number of arrests and jailings. Police in Nulllagine, 184 km north of Newman (Western Australia), claim drunken domestic scenes which once dogged the community have virtially disappeared and the residents seem happier and healthier. Three Christian Aboriginal leaders were the key to revival, Empowered with a fresh anointing of the Holy Spirit, they began regular meetings and prayer events every day. The results were powerful. Some gatherings went on for eight hours as people shared in song, testimony, prayer and Bible reading. The effect was felt in the whole community.
The only sufferer is the local pub, the Conglomerate Hotel, which once kept six staff busy. The lessee went into receivership after the town's lOO-150 Aboriginal people turned to Christianity. Since then, the Aboriginal community has reduced the number of arrests to just a handful of men and there have been no jailings. They gave up alcohol and labelled the hotel, 'the Devil's place'.
Instead of going to the bar each night to drink, they sit happily in circles under the stars, pray and sing gospel songs at the Yarrangkaji community on the outskirts of town. They are eager to share their new-found love of God and talk about the positive changes they have made to their lives.
Gary Marshall, who leased the hotel and adjoining shop for 22 years, said the arrival of religion spelt disaster for his business, but he did not hold it against the Aboriginal people. "I couldn't sit here and say it was a bad thing," he said. "If they are better off, then it's a wonderful thing."
Senior Constable, Mal Kay, the officer in charge at Nuiligane, said the drop in crime could be explained in part by the fact that the population dropped every time big groups from the community left town to attend religious meetings around Pilbara and Northam. Most arrests in the past have been assaults and woundings stemming from alcohol.
Mother-of-two, Lisa Daibin used to be a weekly visitor to the Nullagine police lockup for assault, anti-social behaviour or just to sober up. The 26 year-old would spend her pension on alcohol, get jealous over her man and find herself in punch-ups with women who were her friends when she was sober. That was before she found Christianity and gave up her drinking last November. "We pray and sing every morning and every night," she said. 'We have church meetings every Wednesday and Saturday."
Miss Dalbin has worked off her fines through community work, picking up rubbish and working in a kitchen. Her favourite drink used to be port and she freely admits it made her act mad. She does not miss it. She is happier, has money in her pocket to go shopping and takes better care of her sons, aged five and eight. now she is sober. She is even studying to get her driver's licence, a privilege which seemed out of reach to her a few months ago. The only time she sees the police is when they stop her to say hello in the street.
Her cousin, Philip Bennell, 39, who spent much of his youth behind bars because of alcohol related strife, has also been sober for about four months. "God is my master now, not grog," he says. "Alcohol is a killer for anybody, but especially for Aboriginal people. I was one of the worst blokes and have spent years of my life in and out of prison. I had two feet in the grave and what I was doing was adding a final nail in the coffin," he adds. "When I found the Lord I gave it all away. I didn't want to die a young bloke."
Philip says that the footpath outside the Conglomerate Hotel has been a site of many arguments and brawls, but now the community hold prayer meetings across the road. If they ventured into the pub, it was only to get a cool drink. "There used to be a lot of tough drinkers at the reserve," he says. "They gave it away because they found a bit of peace and a better way of life"
Aboriginal leaders empowered by the Holy Spirit are leading the revival. These leaders would like to see the revival reaching the wider Kartiya (non-Aboriginal) society. But for these shy desert people to reach out in these days of the struggle for reconciliation will only be by the hand of God.
Source: The Western Australian Renewal Journal #11: Discipleship. www.pastornet.net/au.renewal
A reporter for the Western Australian wrote this account of the revival amongst the Aboriginal People
A religious revival among Aboriginal people in the remote Northwest town of Nullagine - once labelled the arrest capital of Australia has drastically reduced the number of arrests and jailings. Police in Nulllagine, 184 km north of Newman (Western Australia), claim drunken domestic scenes which once dogged the community have virtially disappeared and the residents seem happier and healthier. Three Christian Aboriginal leaders were the key to revival, Empowered with a fresh anointing of the Holy Spirit, they began regular meetings and prayer events every day. The results were powerful. Some gatherings went on for eight hours as people shared in song, testimony, prayer and Bible reading. The effect was felt in the whole community.
The only sufferer is the local pub, the Conglomerate Hotel, which once kept six staff busy. The lessee went into receivership after the town's lOO-150 Aboriginal people turned to Christianity. Since then, the Aboriginal community has reduced the number of arrests to just a handful of men and there have been no jailings. They gave up alcohol and labelled the hotel, 'the Devil's place'.
Instead of going to the bar each night to drink, they sit happily in circles under the stars, pray and sing gospel songs at the Yarrangkaji community on the outskirts of town. They are eager to share their new-found love of God and talk about the positive changes they have made to their lives.
Gary Marshall, who leased the hotel and adjoining shop for 22 years, said the arrival of religion spelt disaster for his business, but he did not hold it against the Aboriginal people. "I couldn't sit here and say it was a bad thing," he said. "If they are better off, then it's a wonderful thing."
Senior Constable, Mal Kay, the officer in charge at Nuiligane, said the drop in crime could be explained in part by the fact that the population dropped every time big groups from the community left town to attend religious meetings around Pilbara and Northam. Most arrests in the past have been assaults and woundings stemming from alcohol.
Mother-of-two, Lisa Daibin used to be a weekly visitor to the Nullagine police lockup for assault, anti-social behaviour or just to sober up. The 26 year-old would spend her pension on alcohol, get jealous over her man and find herself in punch-ups with women who were her friends when she was sober. That was before she found Christianity and gave up her drinking last November. "We pray and sing every morning and every night," she said. 'We have church meetings every Wednesday and Saturday."
Miss Dalbin has worked off her fines through community work, picking up rubbish and working in a kitchen. Her favourite drink used to be port and she freely admits it made her act mad. She does not miss it. She is happier, has money in her pocket to go shopping and takes better care of her sons, aged five and eight. now she is sober. She is even studying to get her driver's licence, a privilege which seemed out of reach to her a few months ago. The only time she sees the police is when they stop her to say hello in the street.
Her cousin, Philip Bennell, 39, who spent much of his youth behind bars because of alcohol related strife, has also been sober for about four months. "God is my master now, not grog," he says. "Alcohol is a killer for anybody, but especially for Aboriginal people. I was one of the worst blokes and have spent years of my life in and out of prison. I had two feet in the grave and what I was doing was adding a final nail in the coffin," he adds. "When I found the Lord I gave it all away. I didn't want to die a young bloke."
Philip says that the footpath outside the Conglomerate Hotel has been a site of many arguments and brawls, but now the community hold prayer meetings across the road. If they ventured into the pub, it was only to get a cool drink. "There used to be a lot of tough drinkers at the reserve," he says. "They gave it away because they found a bit of peace and a better way of life"
Aboriginal leaders empowered by the Holy Spirit are leading the revival. These leaders would like to see the revival reaching the wider Kartiya (non-Aboriginal) society. But for these shy desert people to reach out in these days of the struggle for reconciliation will only be by the hand of God.
Source: The Western Australian Renewal Journal #11: Discipleship. www.pastornet.net/au.renewal
Friday, September 14, 2007
Cash Cows
On the news today it is reported that dairy company giant Fonterra, are to raise quite considerably, the price of butter and just when I had decided to no longer buy yoghurt because of the over-inflated prices in the shops. I have been used to buying two 6-packs of yoghurt and now can only buy one 6-pack for the same price. So, in this butter/yoghurt-less home I am hoping that someone will devise a simple way for me to apply olive oil instead to my morning toast and lunchtime sandwiches. A brush perhaps but one that doesn't require hot water rinsing after every use maybe? A life without butter might pose a problem when it comes to baking day but I'm convinced, it's the banana cakes loaded with butter causing my hanging midriff in these latter years of my life. It's maybe the right time to ditch the cake baking traditions especially since the food police have made us feel guilty, have taken away the pleasure even, to indulge in foods with sugar or butter anyway. Still, there's the time-honoured milk bottle, I am already taking sideways glances at it. If I can do without that bottle in the fridge too, I stand to recoup heaps of cash, much like someone does when they ply hundreds into Lotto for years without a win and then when they finally stop buying them they find they are winning at the bank balance. Ah ye, it's a great day when you stop being a slave to things that are not profitable to you :)
Friday, September 07, 2007
Nothing much Admiral, Philips k9...
makes you think...
A few years after I was born, my Dad met a stranger who was new to our small Texas town.
From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer and soon invited him to live with our family.
The stranger was quickly accepted and was around from then on.
As I grew up, I never questioned his place in my family. In my young mind, he had a special niche.
My parents were complementary instructors: Mom taught me good from evil, and Dad taught me to obey.
But the stranger...he was our storyteller.
He would keep us spellbound for hours on end with adventures, mysteries and comedies.
If I wanted to know anything about politics, history or science, he always knew the answers about the past, understood the present and even seemed able to predict the future!
He took my family to the first major league ball game.
He made me laugh, and he made me cry.
The stranger never stopped talking, but Dad didn't seem to mind.
Sometimes, Mom would get up quietly while the rest of us were shushing each other to listen to what he had to say, and she would go to the kitchen for peace and quiet.
(I wonder now if she ever prayed for the stranger to leave.)
Dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions, but the stranger never felt obligated to honor them.
Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our home... Not from us, our
friends or any visitors.
Our longtime visitor, however, got away with four-letter words that burned my ears and made my dad squirm and my mother blush.
My Dad didn't permit the liberal use of alcohol.
But the stranger encouraged us to try it on a regular basis.
He made cigarettes look cool, cigars manly and pipes distinguished.
He talked freely (much too freely!) about sex.
His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing.
I now know that my early concepts about relationships were influenced strongly by the stranger.
Time after time, he opposed the values of my parents, yet he was seldom rebuked... And NEVER asked to leave.
More than fifty years have passed since the stranger moved in with our family. He has blended right in and is not nearly as fascinating as he was at first. Still, if you could walk into my parents' den today, you would still find him sitting over in his corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures.
His name?...
. . .
We just call him, "TV."
*
*
*
* *Note: This should be required reading for every household!**
He has a wife now....
We call her "Computer."
Their children are called, MP3, iPod, X-box, Play Station and Gameboy.
-Author unknown
A few years after I was born, my Dad met a stranger who was new to our small Texas town.
From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer and soon invited him to live with our family.
The stranger was quickly accepted and was around from then on.
As I grew up, I never questioned his place in my family. In my young mind, he had a special niche.
My parents were complementary instructors: Mom taught me good from evil, and Dad taught me to obey.
But the stranger...he was our storyteller.
He would keep us spellbound for hours on end with adventures, mysteries and comedies.
If I wanted to know anything about politics, history or science, he always knew the answers about the past, understood the present and even seemed able to predict the future!
He took my family to the first major league ball game.
He made me laugh, and he made me cry.
The stranger never stopped talking, but Dad didn't seem to mind.
Sometimes, Mom would get up quietly while the rest of us were shushing each other to listen to what he had to say, and she would go to the kitchen for peace and quiet.
(I wonder now if she ever prayed for the stranger to leave.)
Dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions, but the stranger never felt obligated to honor them.
Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our home... Not from us, our
friends or any visitors.
Our longtime visitor, however, got away with four-letter words that burned my ears and made my dad squirm and my mother blush.
My Dad didn't permit the liberal use of alcohol.
But the stranger encouraged us to try it on a regular basis.
He made cigarettes look cool, cigars manly and pipes distinguished.
He talked freely (much too freely!) about sex.
His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing.
I now know that my early concepts about relationships were influenced strongly by the stranger.
Time after time, he opposed the values of my parents, yet he was seldom rebuked... And NEVER asked to leave.
More than fifty years have passed since the stranger moved in with our family. He has blended right in and is not nearly as fascinating as he was at first. Still, if you could walk into my parents' den today, you would still find him sitting over in his corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures.
His name?...
. . .
We just call him, "TV."
*
*
*
* *Note: This should be required reading for every household!**
He has a wife now....
We call her "Computer."
Their children are called, MP3, iPod, X-box, Play Station and Gameboy.
-Author unknown
Friday, August 24, 2007
And He Will Refine You
"The SILVERSMITH"
-Author Unknown.
Malachi 3:3 says: "He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver."
This verse puzzled some women in a Bible study and they
wondered what this statement meant about the character and
nature of God.
One of the women offered to find out the process of refining silver
and get back to the group at their next Bible Study.
That week, the woman called a silversmith and made an
appointment to watch him at work. She didn't mention anything
about the reason for her interest beyond her curiosity about the
process of refining Silver.
As she watched the silversmith, he held a piece of silver over the
fire and let it heat up. He explained that in refining silver, one
needed to hold the silver in the middle of the fire where the flames
were hottest as to burn away all the impurities.
The woman thought about God holding us in such a hot spot;
then she thought again about the verse that says: "He sits as a
refiner and purifier of silver." She asked the silversmith if it was
true that he had to sit there in front of the fire the whole time the
silver was being refined.
The man answered that yes, he not only had to sit there holding
the silver, but he had to keep his eyes on the silver the entire
time it was in the fire. If the silver was left a moment too long in
the flames, it would be destroyed.
The woman was silent for a moment. Then she asked the silversmith,
"How do you know when the silver is fully refined?"
He smiled at her and answered, "Oh, that's easy -- when I see my
image in it."
If today you are feeling the heat of the fire, remember that God
has his eye on you and will keep watching you until He sees His
image in you.
-Author Unknown.
Malachi 3:3 says: "He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver."
This verse puzzled some women in a Bible study and they
wondered what this statement meant about the character and
nature of God.
One of the women offered to find out the process of refining silver
and get back to the group at their next Bible Study.
That week, the woman called a silversmith and made an
appointment to watch him at work. She didn't mention anything
about the reason for her interest beyond her curiosity about the
process of refining Silver.
As she watched the silversmith, he held a piece of silver over the
fire and let it heat up. He explained that in refining silver, one
needed to hold the silver in the middle of the fire where the flames
were hottest as to burn away all the impurities.
The woman thought about God holding us in such a hot spot;
then she thought again about the verse that says: "He sits as a
refiner and purifier of silver." She asked the silversmith if it was
true that he had to sit there in front of the fire the whole time the
silver was being refined.
The man answered that yes, he not only had to sit there holding
the silver, but he had to keep his eyes on the silver the entire
time it was in the fire. If the silver was left a moment too long in
the flames, it would be destroyed.
The woman was silent for a moment. Then she asked the silversmith,
"How do you know when the silver is fully refined?"
He smiled at her and answered, "Oh, that's easy -- when I see my
image in it."
If today you are feeling the heat of the fire, remember that God
has his eye on you and will keep watching you until He sees His
image in you.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Bye Bye Fly Buys
N.B. Since posting this blog yesterday, I have had a message left by the Marketing Manager of Fly Buys that it was not their fault my favourite perfume was pulled from the Rewards list. I am hopeful that I will get my perfume in due time and thank Mr Lamers for contacting me through this Blog.
N.N.B An update, it is now 7 September and I thank Chris Lamers, Marketing Manager of Fly Buys, for I have received the long-awaited bottle of my favourite perfume. I will gladly continue to use my Fly Buys card in the future. Also, I must remember to not divulge too much information in future as I had made it 'public' on an MSN News Group the name of the perfume I was waiting to redeem with my Fly Buys points. Just maybe someone deliberately had my perfume 'removed' so that I couldn't get it??? I sure hope that wasn't the case...
Darn Fly Buys has gone and deleted my favourite perfume from their "Rewards" list, and just when I'd gained enough points to obtain a bottle!!! Not fair, not fair!!! I'd gone out of my way for an entire year to get the points, from petrol stations to supermarkets, have gone online and answered questions for Colmar Brunton for a few extra points to gain that gorgeous bottle of scent and told my boys, "soon I'll have my new perfume". Finally I have the numbers and went online at last to find it's no longer listed!!! But it was there a couple of weeks ago, I was looking @ it there!!! Now what? No perfume to be had and I sure aint gonna use my points on some other perfume cos I like my favourite one. And what will I do now with all those hard earned points, cos I don't need or want anything else in my home since deciding to go minimal this year. Oh well I guess it's good~bye to fly buys, and hello to freedom shopping.
N.N.B An update, it is now 7 September and I thank Chris Lamers, Marketing Manager of Fly Buys, for I have received the long-awaited bottle of my favourite perfume. I will gladly continue to use my Fly Buys card in the future. Also, I must remember to not divulge too much information in future as I had made it 'public' on an MSN News Group the name of the perfume I was waiting to redeem with my Fly Buys points. Just maybe someone deliberately had my perfume 'removed' so that I couldn't get it??? I sure hope that wasn't the case...
Darn Fly Buys has gone and deleted my favourite perfume from their "Rewards" list, and just when I'd gained enough points to obtain a bottle!!! Not fair, not fair!!! I'd gone out of my way for an entire year to get the points, from petrol stations to supermarkets, have gone online and answered questions for Colmar Brunton for a few extra points to gain that gorgeous bottle of scent and told my boys, "soon I'll have my new perfume". Finally I have the numbers and went online at last to find it's no longer listed!!! But it was there a couple of weeks ago, I was looking @ it there!!! Now what? No perfume to be had and I sure aint gonna use my points on some other perfume cos I like my favourite one. And what will I do now with all those hard earned points, cos I don't need or want anything else in my home since deciding to go minimal this year. Oh well I guess it's good~bye to fly buys, and hello to freedom shopping.
Friday, June 15, 2007
A Bit of a Rort
The philosopher Richard Rorty died last week at the age of 75. His life was one of major impact and influence, his place in history is assured. Rorty questioned the very nature of identity, of truth and of knowledge, attempting to kill any basis for certainty. In short, he is held to have destroyed the notion of an objective reality and in so doing removed the basis for any sound intellectual thought.
Following in the wake of Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche as part of the post-modern movement, Rorty solidified the idea that we cannot know anything with certainty. Therefore, there is no purpose in searching for truth, since knowledge and identity are simply social constructions. If accepted the implications of Rorty's proposition are both profound and terrifying as he removed the grounds for truth.
Rorty also famously claimed that a person lost in a forest has no identity, as a person's identity can only exist in community. When people are isolated they lose themselves. Yet, the irony is that as community is emphasised, togetherness can be lost. As we lose our idea of self, we lose our concept of common humanity, of that which unites us, and instead we are segregated into our own little community. Consequently, our ability to have meaningful engagement with those from other communities is lost and group differences—rather than what we share in common as people—become what defines us.
Rorty left us a lonely world. The impact of his thinking can be seen in universities where debate rages over the status of ethnic science and maths, where cultural relativism is endorsed and universal knowledge denied. As academics struggle to find their feet again they flounder. Rorty's life shows that good intentions can destroy and that one man's ideas can have a tremendous impact over the course of his lifetime.
Copied from today's email "Real Issues" sent out weekly from http://www.maxim.org.nz
Following in the wake of Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche as part of the post-modern movement, Rorty solidified the idea that we cannot know anything with certainty. Therefore, there is no purpose in searching for truth, since knowledge and identity are simply social constructions. If accepted the implications of Rorty's proposition are both profound and terrifying as he removed the grounds for truth.
Rorty also famously claimed that a person lost in a forest has no identity, as a person's identity can only exist in community. When people are isolated they lose themselves. Yet, the irony is that as community is emphasised, togetherness can be lost. As we lose our idea of self, we lose our concept of common humanity, of that which unites us, and instead we are segregated into our own little community. Consequently, our ability to have meaningful engagement with those from other communities is lost and group differences—rather than what we share in common as people—become what defines us.
Rorty left us a lonely world. The impact of his thinking can be seen in universities where debate rages over the status of ethnic science and maths, where cultural relativism is endorsed and universal knowledge denied. As academics struggle to find their feet again they flounder. Rorty's life shows that good intentions can destroy and that one man's ideas can have a tremendous impact over the course of his lifetime.
Copied from today's email "Real Issues" sent out weekly from http://www.maxim.org.nz
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
And I'll Wear My Morning Pants
When my kids played up at school I'd threaten to go to their classroom and sit there all day long in my green stretch morning pants. They were the especially ugly but very comfy, tight-fitting, stretch honeycomb- patterned pants that I mosttimes threw on in the mornings, especially in winter. I'd watch their faces when I would say it and could well imagine the picture in their minds of me sitting there in their classrooms with their mates sniggering at their mum wearing the grotesque pants...well it was too much for them to imagine and I never got any more complaints from their teachers for a couple more months.
I was reminded of this recently when a friend passed away.
She was a wonderful lady with a beautiful heart. She just shone. She had a terrible life though, yet you wouldn't know it. When I met her mum I realised she was all that was wonderful about her mother. She told me once about having to drive her kids to school in the freezing cold of a winters morning. She had on her dressing gown and shoes and let off the kids at the gate. On her return trip home the car, always running on the $10 tank of gas, ran out of petrol on the busy bridge near her home. Typically of my friend, she just did what she had to do and got out and waved down some help from a passing motorist. I can just see her in my mind..smiling her most gorgeous smile, head and shoulders back and looking all the while the lady in her old worn dressing gown. God keep Eire close to You.
I was reminded of this recently when a friend passed away.
She was a wonderful lady with a beautiful heart. She just shone. She had a terrible life though, yet you wouldn't know it. When I met her mum I realised she was all that was wonderful about her mother. She told me once about having to drive her kids to school in the freezing cold of a winters morning. She had on her dressing gown and shoes and let off the kids at the gate. On her return trip home the car, always running on the $10 tank of gas, ran out of petrol on the busy bridge near her home. Typically of my friend, she just did what she had to do and got out and waved down some help from a passing motorist. I can just see her in my mind..smiling her most gorgeous smile, head and shoulders back and looking all the while the lady in her old worn dressing gown. God keep Eire close to You.
Everywhere a Nanny
Don't Let Super Nanny Usurp your Family
I have watched the 'nanny' programmes and wonder how many people choose to remain childless because of them. I have said it before and I'll say it again, parenting is for the fittest and the toughest and only God sees what you do in those unseen acts of love and discipline for your children. You will not go unrewarded.
From the Daily Mail...
Daily Mail UK 22nd May 2007
Child-rearing experts such as Supernanny and Gina Ford are damaging family life by undermining parents' authority in the home, it has been claimed. There was growing confusion among parents over how to bring up children because of the parenting advice 'industry', a leading sociologist warned. He said relying on techniques from the so-called experts could be destroying parents' confidence in their own child-rearing abilities, weakening their control over their offspring. Professor Frank Furedi also warned that the spread of the nanny state was adding to bewilderment among parents.
Professor Furedi, a sociologist at Kent University, was among academics to challenge increasing interference in family life at a twoday conference at the university. He claimed figures including TV Supernanny Jo Frost, whose discipline techniques include the 'naughty step', portrayed mothers and fathers as incompetent. He said: "They basically assume the high ground - 'I am the supernanny, unlike you, the incompetent, bumbling idiot'." But he warned that the wealth of advice available, from Miss Frost and others including the no-nonsense author Gina Ford, risked demoralising parents.
Professor Furedi, author of Paranoid Parenting and the Culture of Fear, went on to accuse Labour of politicising parenting!!!
Read more at.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=456765&in_page_id=1770
I have watched the 'nanny' programmes and wonder how many people choose to remain childless because of them. I have said it before and I'll say it again, parenting is for the fittest and the toughest and only God sees what you do in those unseen acts of love and discipline for your children. You will not go unrewarded.
From the Daily Mail...
Daily Mail UK 22nd May 2007
Child-rearing experts such as Supernanny and Gina Ford are damaging family life by undermining parents' authority in the home, it has been claimed. There was growing confusion among parents over how to bring up children because of the parenting advice 'industry', a leading sociologist warned. He said relying on techniques from the so-called experts could be destroying parents' confidence in their own child-rearing abilities, weakening their control over their offspring. Professor Frank Furedi also warned that the spread of the nanny state was adding to bewilderment among parents.
Professor Furedi, a sociologist at Kent University, was among academics to challenge increasing interference in family life at a twoday conference at the university. He claimed figures including TV Supernanny Jo Frost, whose discipline techniques include the 'naughty step', portrayed mothers and fathers as incompetent. He said: "They basically assume the high ground - 'I am the supernanny, unlike you, the incompetent, bumbling idiot'." But he warned that the wealth of advice available, from Miss Frost and others including the no-nonsense author Gina Ford, risked demoralising parents.
Professor Furedi, author of Paranoid Parenting and the Culture of Fear, went on to accuse Labour of politicising parenting!!!
Read more at.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=456765&in_page_id=1770
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Remote Control of The Family
How to control adults by means of 'children's rights'.
By Lynette Burrows
This article is published by The Human Life Foundation, Inc. New York, in the HUMAN LIFE REVIEW, Vol. XXV, No. 2, Spring 1999, pages 65 - 73. The article is reproduced here with the kind consent of the author.
Lynette Burrows is a well-known English educator and journalist. Her latest book, The Fight for the Family, was published in 1998, revised and reprinted in March 1999 by the Family Education Trust, Family Publications, Oxford, England.
When you think about it, the fashionable crusade of 'children's rights' is bound to be anti-family. It is a movement which declares itself to be more interested in the welfare of children than are ordinary parents. It seeks rights and laws for children that neither they, nor their parents, want. It promises to give children legal sanctions against their parents and, in so doing, pits the interests of children against their parents. The inescapable implication is that children are not in safe hands with their own parents and that a whole movement has had to be called into being in order to protect them. It is an innocent-sounding piece of subliminal, anti-family propaganda, advertising the fact that parents are, at best, inadequate and, at worst, hostile to the needs of their children.
Analysing the 'loaded' message of the title 'children's rights' one can see it attempts to pack the punch of an appeal to both parental feeling and the nobility of action implied by the word 'rights'. It is utterly bogus! A 'right is classically defined as 'the freedom to act without interference, according to one's conscience.' It means nothing unless the individual has the capacity to act upon their 'right' and children, by nature of their immaturity and inexperience, do not have that capacity. So they have people who act for them, in the form of the people who created them and who love them more than anyone else. Those people, the adult parents, have a freedom to act according to their conscience, and within the law, with their children and it is that freedom that the children's rights activists seek to remove.
One can clearly map their intentions by what they have achieved so far and what they are signalling they want to do in the future. I don't know anything about the American scene but, in Great Britain, and several European countries, among their achievements has been securing the right of the state to allow under-age children to be given contraceptives and abortions without their parents' knowledge or consent. This remarkable right was not achieved via parliament, which still upholds an 'age of consent' at sixteen years. Still less was it achieved by pressure from either parents or children. It was as achieved by the active collaboration of the industry that sells contraceptives, the people who are employed in promoting their use, and the 'children's rights' lobby who claimed that, since children had now decided to be sexually active - there was nothing parents could do about it.
The right for children to 'divorce' unsatisfactory parents has also been secured for them by children's rights lawyers; working on the usual pay-rates but with the bill settled by the taxpayer. So far parents have not been given the right to divorce unsatisfactory children - but that is consistent with the philosophy of children's rights. It is parents who are failing in their duty to give children the freedom they need. Children, the client group, are not to be criticised or restricted in any way.
Children have also been given the right to take themselves out of the care of their parents and put themselves instead, into the misnamed 'care' of the local authority. Just what this can mean was illustrated by a mother, Mrs Iverson, whose14 year old daughter went to live with a 33 year old drug-dealer from Jamaica. She appealed to the local authority to get her daughter back and they responded by getting a social worker to take the child to a contraceptive clinic. The anguished mother could do nothing whilst her daughter was first introduced to a life of prostitution and then, a month later, murdered. No-one in authority was criticised or prosecuted for their lack of action since they, and the police, were prevented from denying the child her 'right' to free association, by the Children Act, 1989.
Thus, one can see by their aims and achievements, that the right to behave badly is second only to the right to premature sexual activity, according to the children's rights agenda. Furtherance of this aim was massively enhanced by the successful campaign of one of the earliest children's rights groups to get corporal punishment, of even the mildest kind, outlawed in schools. An unwary parliament passed this law by one vote, against a background of generally unproblematic discipline in schools. Certainly primary schools were little havens of tranquillity and learning for children in even the roughest areas. All this has gone now; together with thousands of good teachers who have fled a profession where harassment of them is the norm rather than the exception in many areas.
Children have, in other words, been given an amazing collection of liberties to behave badly, with absolutely no enforceable obligations to behave themselves or even to observe the law. On the other hand, their misdeeds are providing masses of highly paid work for the now enormous lobby of professionals who are parasitic on the new options available to children and the problems they bring. Any attempt to improve the behaviour of young people, is bound to run into opposition from these professionals since they are defending a financial interest that is dependent upon more of the same.
Another peculiarity of the rights, sought by activists for children, is how extremely limited and arbitrary they are. If these really were rights that any child could legitimately be supposed to need or to want, they would surely start with the right of a child to be born and not to be killed before birth. But all children's rights activists support abortion in principle and in practice as if, in any circumstances, it could be considered in the unborn child's best interest.
Then again, any child should surely have a right to enjoy a relationship with both their mother and their father; rather than being created by artificial insemination for the benefit of a lesbian couple. In all the arguments about this still highly contentious practice, and its rather more relevant, related topic, the ability of homosexuals to foster and adopt children, the children's rights people have been 'out to lunch'.
Another major area where a serious question of children's rights are involved, is surely the right of children not to be bullied at school. Parents protest about it all the time, but little has been done to address their concerns because parents do not belong to well-funded organisations with direct access to the media. 70% of parents were found last year to want corporal punishment restored in school; and so too did 68% of schoolchildren.
The reason for this is, no doubt, because many children are in fact receiving punishment that is decidedly 'corporal' in school - but from bullying thugs rather than from lawful authority. The rights activists don't address this subject because they are so busy monitoring schools for signs of homophobia, sexism or racism that they seem to have overlooked the much larger number of children who are simply terrified of the big boys.
Other areas deserving attention from those who could support parents in wanting the best for their children, would be having a flexible school leaving age and having the right to do work outside of school hours. Even more important, amongst the list of glaring omissions in the children's rights agenda, is the care and protection of children who have been taken into council care.
The Social Services Inspectorate presented a report last year that pointed out just how badly children 'in care' are doing. Despite there being only 0.5% of children in local authority care, 22% of young men in prison and 39% of prisoners under 21 have been in care. One third of people sleeping rough in London have been in care and one quarter of children in care aged 14 or over, don't go to school regularly. For some reason, referred to in the report but not explained, many of those who abscond from children's homes, somehow disappear from local authority records thereafter.
When this report came out, there was much public discussion about this parlous state of affairs and many people commented on the lack of independent monitoring to safeguard vulnerable children. None that I saw, even thought to question the complete lack of involvement or interest in this scandal by the many, high-profile, publicly funded, children's rights organisations. There are many areas of pressing need in relation to disadvantaged children, where parents with the best will in the world, simply have no power to get things done. Well-funded organisations with premises, facilities, telephones, full time staff and, above all, access to the media, could do so much of real value if they wanted to; but our current crop do not. So, one has to ask, what do they really want?
The answer to this must be that it is something ideological as well as something financial. The financial objective is fairly straight-foreward. It has provided a good many jobs and the children's rights activists have certainly found themselves a career. My book, The Fight for the Family, (a second edition of which came out in March) started life as a commissioned chapter in a book about social affairs. I was given a researcher (American) and told to find out about the principle children's rights groups; who formed them, who supported them and who paid for them.
Once we began, we found a scene so entirely different from what we had expected, that we became seriously interested and what had started out as a fairly hum-drum piece of research turned into a fascinating lesson in the modus operandi of pressure groups. It also ballooned into a small book.
For a start we discovered that all the principle groups concerned with this characteristically liberal/left version of children's rights, groups were founded or co-founded by one man, and his domestic 'partner', mostly as limited companies. Their friends and colleagues over the years were spread amongst child care charities and government committees and one, or both, turned up on the boards of all eight of the principal organisations promoting their version of 'children's rights'. Their ideological orientation explained why the narrow agenda they pursued in every case was so similar. It also explained why the basic assumption was always that children needed to be 'liberated' from their parents care and control. Not having chosen to get married themselves, despite having children, it is fair to say that they have some rooted objection to marriage as an institution or, at least, believe that it is not important.
These groups have played an important part in promoting all the rights referred to above relating to premature sexual activity and behaving badly. One of the organisations was exclusively devoted to securing the abolition of corporal punishment in schools and, that having been achieved, its funds were transferred to another organisation, End Physical Punishment of Children, (EPOCH) which is the principle driving force behind attempts to get parental smacking of children criminalised.
The part of my book which really enraged rights activists, however, was not the discussion of their ideological bent, which they did not seem to dispute. It was the fact that attention was drawn to the similarity of their aims to those of the paedophile organisations of the 1970's, which were prosecuted and suppressed in 1980.
As a matter of fact, the similarities are striking and, whilst I was not claiming that children's rights activists were all paedophiles, it is nevertheless evident that their campaigns have been useful to those who want greater sexual access to children. 'Unwitting' was the word I used to describe the direct help given to paedophiles by the de facto abolition of the age of consent for girls in the matter of providing them with contraceptives at school. Now it is proposed to apply the same age of consent law to boys for homosexual activity, we will no doubt see its de facto abolition too.
However, it was after the book was sold out that the response to the publishers began to make another aspect of 'children's rights' clear. It was always obvious that the welfare of children was very low on most of the activists' agenda. Otherwise they would have been doing honest research to discover whether the freedoms advocated by them for children, were actually beneficial. They would also have been much more interested in whether breaking up families was the best response to anything but clear law-breaking on the part of parents, not to mention whether local authority care was better for children than a normal, even strict, home.
Now, like a voice from beyond the grave, we suddenly heard that Sweden had, at long last, developed a protest movement against the things that were being done to them in the name of children's rights. I don't know if it is the same in America, but here and in Europe, Sweden has always been held up as a paragon of 'progressive' innovation. It is referred to in reverential tones by liberals everywhere and children's rights activists place particular emphasis on the beneficial effects of their 1979 law which forbade parents to smack their children. According to their literature, no parents have ever been imprisoned or otherwise penalised for having laid a hand on their children and there is no cause for concern anywhere.
Well, it isn't true! An organisation of academics, lawyers, doctors and other professionals have formed 'The Nordic Committee for Human Rights', which is principally concerned with human rights abuses in Sweden, the most powerful and influential of the Nordic nations. They have a website (NKMR.org) where you can read all about it in English. They point out several crucial, historical factors. Notably that the Nazi's copied a good deal of their social policy from the Swedes; particularly that part of it which saw children as belonging to 'the parental state' rather than to its parents. The family too was viewed with dislike since it encouraged thoughts and actions that were not prescribed by the state.
Unmarried mothers had their babies automatically taken away from them and an organisation called 'Save the Children' was begun during the 1930's in Sweden, which was, contrary to expectation, profoundly anti-family. What children had to be 'saved' from, were the imperfections of their natural parents and the oppressive and un-enlightened atmosphere of a normal family. That has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?
They were also very enamoured of eugenics and the idea of a perfect racial type. Unbeknown to the rest of the world, the Swedish government pursued a policy of forced sterilisation of children it thought came from poor stock, until 1976. What a surprise for liberals everywhere when the fact came out, only last year, that more than 60,000 children had, in that way, been cleansed of their ability to procreate .
Few people had any idea that the Swedish government had the power to maintain such secrecy when it also had a relatively free press. One can hazard a guess that the truth only emerged finally because a couple of sad individuals, who had been deprived of their birthright by being sterilised when they were children in care, sued the government for compensation for what was done for them. Victims have now been promised the princely sum of £7,000 apiece.
The Nordic Committee, under its energetic and fearless chairman Ruby Harrold-Claesson, has at last broken open many of the other half-truths that the Swedish authorities are still putting about. She is a lawyer - incidentally, the only black one in Sweden - and has dredged up a lot of the figures relating to the seizure of children by the authorities. These are difficult to obtain because they are not recorded in the normal, criminal courts. Hence the ability of the children's rights people to claim that there have been no prosecutions under the 1979 law. Children are taken away under the auspices of an administrative court which, in the public interest, of course, keeps the figures safely out of reach of most people.
To give you an idea of the scale of the tyranny over the family, it is necessary to describe the context. Sweden has a population of eight million; it is also extremely homogenous as to race and no people in Europe are more clearly identifiable by their appearance alone. It has virtually no poverty, wall to wall welfare and no large cities. The capital city has a population of less than two million and the second city has one hundred and fifty thousand people. There should be, in fact, very few cases where children need to be taken from their parents. Yet, in 1981 the authorities seized 22,000 children; which represents a rate of seizure 86 times greater than that of West Germany. An equivalent figure for America would be, by that reckoning, more than 687 thousand - in one year!
No doubt the authorities had such a field day because of the number of children who had been smacked by their parents before the 1979 Act came in. The figure fell somewhat after that but, in 1995, it was 14,700 children removed from their homes. That is a rate 57 times that of Germany and, in American terms, would be nearly 500 thousand children. A mind-boggling number for the rest of the world to contemplate and a clear explanation why so few people in Sweden either get married or have children.
Yet why is this so little known? From time to time there is brief publicity of the abuses of Sweden, before liberals return to their uncritical admiration of it. Unfortunately for the oppressed everywhere, the liberal/left always treasures its heroes - even when they are murderous tyrants - so it will take some time, and a lot of repetition, for the truth to rise to the surface.
Another stalwart of the Nordic Committee, Siv Westerberg, has taken eight cases to the Court of Human rights at Strasborg, and has won seven times. The Readers Digest featured one of her cases in 1993. It involved three children who were abducted by the authorities whilst they were at school. They were sent to separate families 600 miles away and it took the parents 5 months even to find out where they were. No specific reason was ever given for why they had been taken; just that it was in their 'best interest'. It took seven years before the parents were able to get their case to the European Court, which found in their favour. The parents were awarded £33,000 compensation and the Swedish authorities were told to return the children to their parents. The eldest, who was then 17, was allowed home but the other two were not. This is the system that we are being asked to admire and follow!
By a striking coincidence, on the very day the organisation that published my book held a conference to discuss its findings, the BBC asked to do an interview with me about the smacking debate. Since I was tied up with the conference, they decided to interview me in a side room during the lunch break and, accordingly sent an interviewer and crew. I took the opportunity to introduce them to Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who was one of the principle speakers at the conference and she gave them a brief run-down of what she was saying about Sweden.
The team looked uncomfortable and, when I suggested that they include an interview with her to beef-up the debate, they said they already had been to Sweden and would be including an account of things there, as part of the programme.
When we watched the programme a few days later, sure enough, there they were in Sweden interviewing a handful of schoolchildren who confirmed that their parents were not allowed to smack them. They then asked a senior official about whether many children had been taken from their families as a result of the anti-smacking law. Laughing uproariously, she waved her hand around her, 'Can you see many children being taken?' she said. And that was supposed to be a sufficient answer.
After this, the missing brick fell into place! The question was always, why are the children's rights people so concerned to make the parental right to smack their children illegal? Most of their organisations have been more or less devoted to the subject despite the fact that 90% of good and caring parents say that it is necessary at times. Now the answer is clear.
It is a device which places most parents in the power of social workers. They are, by training and tradition, marxist, feminist, and anti-religious. They don't much care for the family and lend their weight on every possible occasion to arguments and devices that show it in a bad light. In this country, they are still opposed to the inclusion, in official statistics, of figures which show the precise nature of the relationship of abusers to the children they abuse. At present, they are simply called 'fathers', even though they are seldom genetic fathers and, even more seldom, genetic fathers actually married to the mother of their children. The traditional family is still the safest place for any child to be - but you would not know it from official literature on the subject.
Thus, anybody who wanted to further a marxist, feminist agenda, could not do better than to have most families in thrall to social workers. The right to browbeat parents because they smack their children when they think it necessary, as the Bible tells them they must, would be all an officious bureaucracy needed to infantalise the majority of adults. It is not about the elevation of children's rights at all. It is about the crushing of adult ones.
It is a particularly crafty bandwagon to set on the road because it has drawn support from so many unpleasant but powerful allies. Contraceptive-selling commerce has welcomed and supported them; paedophiles love them; and as for those government employees engaged in the job of directing, but not curbing, the rising tide of young people in trouble - they simply could not do without them.
Baby-snatching, as it has always been called, is almost bound to be due for a make-over in the years to come. There has been in increase in infertility amongst the young that would be considered alarming if we were not still so fixated with the idea of over-population; plus the fact that the 'wrong' sort of people are still having babies, particularly out of wedlock. This rise must be due, at least in part, to the powerful steroids being given to young girls to ensure their continuance as sexually active people. Also because of the extraordinary increase in the sexually transmitted diseases which cause barrenness in women and sterility in men.
Evils have a habit of happening one upon the other and it is an ironic observation made by the Nordic Committee for Human rights, that one of the reasons it is so easy to find foster-carers for the thousands of 'snatched' children in Sweden, is a political one. Successive social policy makers have scorned the role of wife and mother for many years. A woman loses all child benefits if she refuses to place her children in a crèche and she would feel very vulnerable to having them taken away too. Unless of course she had a very well-paid job to do there - looking after other people's stolen children.
It is incongruous, isn't it? To build your home on the ruins of someone else's. No wonder Scandinavian dramatists at the turn of the century were always so gloomy; they must have sensed what was coming.
The Fight For The Family:
http://www.nkmr.org/book_tips_the_fight_for_the_family.htm
By Lynette Burrows
This article is published by The Human Life Foundation, Inc. New York, in the HUMAN LIFE REVIEW, Vol. XXV, No. 2, Spring 1999, pages 65 - 73. The article is reproduced here with the kind consent of the author.
Lynette Burrows is a well-known English educator and journalist. Her latest book, The Fight for the Family, was published in 1998, revised and reprinted in March 1999 by the Family Education Trust, Family Publications, Oxford, England.
When you think about it, the fashionable crusade of 'children's rights' is bound to be anti-family. It is a movement which declares itself to be more interested in the welfare of children than are ordinary parents. It seeks rights and laws for children that neither they, nor their parents, want. It promises to give children legal sanctions against their parents and, in so doing, pits the interests of children against their parents. The inescapable implication is that children are not in safe hands with their own parents and that a whole movement has had to be called into being in order to protect them. It is an innocent-sounding piece of subliminal, anti-family propaganda, advertising the fact that parents are, at best, inadequate and, at worst, hostile to the needs of their children.
Analysing the 'loaded' message of the title 'children's rights' one can see it attempts to pack the punch of an appeal to both parental feeling and the nobility of action implied by the word 'rights'. It is utterly bogus! A 'right is classically defined as 'the freedom to act without interference, according to one's conscience.' It means nothing unless the individual has the capacity to act upon their 'right' and children, by nature of their immaturity and inexperience, do not have that capacity. So they have people who act for them, in the form of the people who created them and who love them more than anyone else. Those people, the adult parents, have a freedom to act according to their conscience, and within the law, with their children and it is that freedom that the children's rights activists seek to remove.
One can clearly map their intentions by what they have achieved so far and what they are signalling they want to do in the future. I don't know anything about the American scene but, in Great Britain, and several European countries, among their achievements has been securing the right of the state to allow under-age children to be given contraceptives and abortions without their parents' knowledge or consent. This remarkable right was not achieved via parliament, which still upholds an 'age of consent' at sixteen years. Still less was it achieved by pressure from either parents or children. It was as achieved by the active collaboration of the industry that sells contraceptives, the people who are employed in promoting their use, and the 'children's rights' lobby who claimed that, since children had now decided to be sexually active - there was nothing parents could do about it.
The right for children to 'divorce' unsatisfactory parents has also been secured for them by children's rights lawyers; working on the usual pay-rates but with the bill settled by the taxpayer. So far parents have not been given the right to divorce unsatisfactory children - but that is consistent with the philosophy of children's rights. It is parents who are failing in their duty to give children the freedom they need. Children, the client group, are not to be criticised or restricted in any way.
Children have also been given the right to take themselves out of the care of their parents and put themselves instead, into the misnamed 'care' of the local authority. Just what this can mean was illustrated by a mother, Mrs Iverson, whose14 year old daughter went to live with a 33 year old drug-dealer from Jamaica. She appealed to the local authority to get her daughter back and they responded by getting a social worker to take the child to a contraceptive clinic. The anguished mother could do nothing whilst her daughter was first introduced to a life of prostitution and then, a month later, murdered. No-one in authority was criticised or prosecuted for their lack of action since they, and the police, were prevented from denying the child her 'right' to free association, by the Children Act, 1989.
Thus, one can see by their aims and achievements, that the right to behave badly is second only to the right to premature sexual activity, according to the children's rights agenda. Furtherance of this aim was massively enhanced by the successful campaign of one of the earliest children's rights groups to get corporal punishment, of even the mildest kind, outlawed in schools. An unwary parliament passed this law by one vote, against a background of generally unproblematic discipline in schools. Certainly primary schools were little havens of tranquillity and learning for children in even the roughest areas. All this has gone now; together with thousands of good teachers who have fled a profession where harassment of them is the norm rather than the exception in many areas.
Children have, in other words, been given an amazing collection of liberties to behave badly, with absolutely no enforceable obligations to behave themselves or even to observe the law. On the other hand, their misdeeds are providing masses of highly paid work for the now enormous lobby of professionals who are parasitic on the new options available to children and the problems they bring. Any attempt to improve the behaviour of young people, is bound to run into opposition from these professionals since they are defending a financial interest that is dependent upon more of the same.
Another peculiarity of the rights, sought by activists for children, is how extremely limited and arbitrary they are. If these really were rights that any child could legitimately be supposed to need or to want, they would surely start with the right of a child to be born and not to be killed before birth. But all children's rights activists support abortion in principle and in practice as if, in any circumstances, it could be considered in the unborn child's best interest.
Then again, any child should surely have a right to enjoy a relationship with both their mother and their father; rather than being created by artificial insemination for the benefit of a lesbian couple. In all the arguments about this still highly contentious practice, and its rather more relevant, related topic, the ability of homosexuals to foster and adopt children, the children's rights people have been 'out to lunch'.
Another major area where a serious question of children's rights are involved, is surely the right of children not to be bullied at school. Parents protest about it all the time, but little has been done to address their concerns because parents do not belong to well-funded organisations with direct access to the media. 70% of parents were found last year to want corporal punishment restored in school; and so too did 68% of schoolchildren.
The reason for this is, no doubt, because many children are in fact receiving punishment that is decidedly 'corporal' in school - but from bullying thugs rather than from lawful authority. The rights activists don't address this subject because they are so busy monitoring schools for signs of homophobia, sexism or racism that they seem to have overlooked the much larger number of children who are simply terrified of the big boys.
Other areas deserving attention from those who could support parents in wanting the best for their children, would be having a flexible school leaving age and having the right to do work outside of school hours. Even more important, amongst the list of glaring omissions in the children's rights agenda, is the care and protection of children who have been taken into council care.
The Social Services Inspectorate presented a report last year that pointed out just how badly children 'in care' are doing. Despite there being only 0.5% of children in local authority care, 22% of young men in prison and 39% of prisoners under 21 have been in care. One third of people sleeping rough in London have been in care and one quarter of children in care aged 14 or over, don't go to school regularly. For some reason, referred to in the report but not explained, many of those who abscond from children's homes, somehow disappear from local authority records thereafter.
When this report came out, there was much public discussion about this parlous state of affairs and many people commented on the lack of independent monitoring to safeguard vulnerable children. None that I saw, even thought to question the complete lack of involvement or interest in this scandal by the many, high-profile, publicly funded, children's rights organisations. There are many areas of pressing need in relation to disadvantaged children, where parents with the best will in the world, simply have no power to get things done. Well-funded organisations with premises, facilities, telephones, full time staff and, above all, access to the media, could do so much of real value if they wanted to; but our current crop do not. So, one has to ask, what do they really want?
The answer to this must be that it is something ideological as well as something financial. The financial objective is fairly straight-foreward. It has provided a good many jobs and the children's rights activists have certainly found themselves a career. My book, The Fight for the Family, (a second edition of which came out in March) started life as a commissioned chapter in a book about social affairs. I was given a researcher (American) and told to find out about the principle children's rights groups; who formed them, who supported them and who paid for them.
Once we began, we found a scene so entirely different from what we had expected, that we became seriously interested and what had started out as a fairly hum-drum piece of research turned into a fascinating lesson in the modus operandi of pressure groups. It also ballooned into a small book.
For a start we discovered that all the principle groups concerned with this characteristically liberal/left version of children's rights, groups were founded or co-founded by one man, and his domestic 'partner', mostly as limited companies. Their friends and colleagues over the years were spread amongst child care charities and government committees and one, or both, turned up on the boards of all eight of the principal organisations promoting their version of 'children's rights'. Their ideological orientation explained why the narrow agenda they pursued in every case was so similar. It also explained why the basic assumption was always that children needed to be 'liberated' from their parents care and control. Not having chosen to get married themselves, despite having children, it is fair to say that they have some rooted objection to marriage as an institution or, at least, believe that it is not important.
These groups have played an important part in promoting all the rights referred to above relating to premature sexual activity and behaving badly. One of the organisations was exclusively devoted to securing the abolition of corporal punishment in schools and, that having been achieved, its funds were transferred to another organisation, End Physical Punishment of Children, (EPOCH) which is the principle driving force behind attempts to get parental smacking of children criminalised.
The part of my book which really enraged rights activists, however, was not the discussion of their ideological bent, which they did not seem to dispute. It was the fact that attention was drawn to the similarity of their aims to those of the paedophile organisations of the 1970's, which were prosecuted and suppressed in 1980.
As a matter of fact, the similarities are striking and, whilst I was not claiming that children's rights activists were all paedophiles, it is nevertheless evident that their campaigns have been useful to those who want greater sexual access to children. 'Unwitting' was the word I used to describe the direct help given to paedophiles by the de facto abolition of the age of consent for girls in the matter of providing them with contraceptives at school. Now it is proposed to apply the same age of consent law to boys for homosexual activity, we will no doubt see its de facto abolition too.
However, it was after the book was sold out that the response to the publishers began to make another aspect of 'children's rights' clear. It was always obvious that the welfare of children was very low on most of the activists' agenda. Otherwise they would have been doing honest research to discover whether the freedoms advocated by them for children, were actually beneficial. They would also have been much more interested in whether breaking up families was the best response to anything but clear law-breaking on the part of parents, not to mention whether local authority care was better for children than a normal, even strict, home.
Now, like a voice from beyond the grave, we suddenly heard that Sweden had, at long last, developed a protest movement against the things that were being done to them in the name of children's rights. I don't know if it is the same in America, but here and in Europe, Sweden has always been held up as a paragon of 'progressive' innovation. It is referred to in reverential tones by liberals everywhere and children's rights activists place particular emphasis on the beneficial effects of their 1979 law which forbade parents to smack their children. According to their literature, no parents have ever been imprisoned or otherwise penalised for having laid a hand on their children and there is no cause for concern anywhere.
Well, it isn't true! An organisation of academics, lawyers, doctors and other professionals have formed 'The Nordic Committee for Human Rights', which is principally concerned with human rights abuses in Sweden, the most powerful and influential of the Nordic nations. They have a website (NKMR.org) where you can read all about it in English. They point out several crucial, historical factors. Notably that the Nazi's copied a good deal of their social policy from the Swedes; particularly that part of it which saw children as belonging to 'the parental state' rather than to its parents. The family too was viewed with dislike since it encouraged thoughts and actions that were not prescribed by the state.
Unmarried mothers had their babies automatically taken away from them and an organisation called 'Save the Children' was begun during the 1930's in Sweden, which was, contrary to expectation, profoundly anti-family. What children had to be 'saved' from, were the imperfections of their natural parents and the oppressive and un-enlightened atmosphere of a normal family. That has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?
They were also very enamoured of eugenics and the idea of a perfect racial type. Unbeknown to the rest of the world, the Swedish government pursued a policy of forced sterilisation of children it thought came from poor stock, until 1976. What a surprise for liberals everywhere when the fact came out, only last year, that more than 60,000 children had, in that way, been cleansed of their ability to procreate .
Few people had any idea that the Swedish government had the power to maintain such secrecy when it also had a relatively free press. One can hazard a guess that the truth only emerged finally because a couple of sad individuals, who had been deprived of their birthright by being sterilised when they were children in care, sued the government for compensation for what was done for them. Victims have now been promised the princely sum of £7,000 apiece.
The Nordic Committee, under its energetic and fearless chairman Ruby Harrold-Claesson, has at last broken open many of the other half-truths that the Swedish authorities are still putting about. She is a lawyer - incidentally, the only black one in Sweden - and has dredged up a lot of the figures relating to the seizure of children by the authorities. These are difficult to obtain because they are not recorded in the normal, criminal courts. Hence the ability of the children's rights people to claim that there have been no prosecutions under the 1979 law. Children are taken away under the auspices of an administrative court which, in the public interest, of course, keeps the figures safely out of reach of most people.
To give you an idea of the scale of the tyranny over the family, it is necessary to describe the context. Sweden has a population of eight million; it is also extremely homogenous as to race and no people in Europe are more clearly identifiable by their appearance alone. It has virtually no poverty, wall to wall welfare and no large cities. The capital city has a population of less than two million and the second city has one hundred and fifty thousand people. There should be, in fact, very few cases where children need to be taken from their parents. Yet, in 1981 the authorities seized 22,000 children; which represents a rate of seizure 86 times greater than that of West Germany. An equivalent figure for America would be, by that reckoning, more than 687 thousand - in one year!
No doubt the authorities had such a field day because of the number of children who had been smacked by their parents before the 1979 Act came in. The figure fell somewhat after that but, in 1995, it was 14,700 children removed from their homes. That is a rate 57 times that of Germany and, in American terms, would be nearly 500 thousand children. A mind-boggling number for the rest of the world to contemplate and a clear explanation why so few people in Sweden either get married or have children.
Yet why is this so little known? From time to time there is brief publicity of the abuses of Sweden, before liberals return to their uncritical admiration of it. Unfortunately for the oppressed everywhere, the liberal/left always treasures its heroes - even when they are murderous tyrants - so it will take some time, and a lot of repetition, for the truth to rise to the surface.
Another stalwart of the Nordic Committee, Siv Westerberg, has taken eight cases to the Court of Human rights at Strasborg, and has won seven times. The Readers Digest featured one of her cases in 1993. It involved three children who were abducted by the authorities whilst they were at school. They were sent to separate families 600 miles away and it took the parents 5 months even to find out where they were. No specific reason was ever given for why they had been taken; just that it was in their 'best interest'. It took seven years before the parents were able to get their case to the European Court, which found in their favour. The parents were awarded £33,000 compensation and the Swedish authorities were told to return the children to their parents. The eldest, who was then 17, was allowed home but the other two were not. This is the system that we are being asked to admire and follow!
By a striking coincidence, on the very day the organisation that published my book held a conference to discuss its findings, the BBC asked to do an interview with me about the smacking debate. Since I was tied up with the conference, they decided to interview me in a side room during the lunch break and, accordingly sent an interviewer and crew. I took the opportunity to introduce them to Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who was one of the principle speakers at the conference and she gave them a brief run-down of what she was saying about Sweden.
The team looked uncomfortable and, when I suggested that they include an interview with her to beef-up the debate, they said they already had been to Sweden and would be including an account of things there, as part of the programme.
When we watched the programme a few days later, sure enough, there they were in Sweden interviewing a handful of schoolchildren who confirmed that their parents were not allowed to smack them. They then asked a senior official about whether many children had been taken from their families as a result of the anti-smacking law. Laughing uproariously, she waved her hand around her, 'Can you see many children being taken?' she said. And that was supposed to be a sufficient answer.
After this, the missing brick fell into place! The question was always, why are the children's rights people so concerned to make the parental right to smack their children illegal? Most of their organisations have been more or less devoted to the subject despite the fact that 90% of good and caring parents say that it is necessary at times. Now the answer is clear.
It is a device which places most parents in the power of social workers. They are, by training and tradition, marxist, feminist, and anti-religious. They don't much care for the family and lend their weight on every possible occasion to arguments and devices that show it in a bad light. In this country, they are still opposed to the inclusion, in official statistics, of figures which show the precise nature of the relationship of abusers to the children they abuse. At present, they are simply called 'fathers', even though they are seldom genetic fathers and, even more seldom, genetic fathers actually married to the mother of their children. The traditional family is still the safest place for any child to be - but you would not know it from official literature on the subject.
Thus, anybody who wanted to further a marxist, feminist agenda, could not do better than to have most families in thrall to social workers. The right to browbeat parents because they smack their children when they think it necessary, as the Bible tells them they must, would be all an officious bureaucracy needed to infantalise the majority of adults. It is not about the elevation of children's rights at all. It is about the crushing of adult ones.
It is a particularly crafty bandwagon to set on the road because it has drawn support from so many unpleasant but powerful allies. Contraceptive-selling commerce has welcomed and supported them; paedophiles love them; and as for those government employees engaged in the job of directing, but not curbing, the rising tide of young people in trouble - they simply could not do without them.
Baby-snatching, as it has always been called, is almost bound to be due for a make-over in the years to come. There has been in increase in infertility amongst the young that would be considered alarming if we were not still so fixated with the idea of over-population; plus the fact that the 'wrong' sort of people are still having babies, particularly out of wedlock. This rise must be due, at least in part, to the powerful steroids being given to young girls to ensure their continuance as sexually active people. Also because of the extraordinary increase in the sexually transmitted diseases which cause barrenness in women and sterility in men.
Evils have a habit of happening one upon the other and it is an ironic observation made by the Nordic Committee for Human rights, that one of the reasons it is so easy to find foster-carers for the thousands of 'snatched' children in Sweden, is a political one. Successive social policy makers have scorned the role of wife and mother for many years. A woman loses all child benefits if she refuses to place her children in a crèche and she would feel very vulnerable to having them taken away too. Unless of course she had a very well-paid job to do there - looking after other people's stolen children.
It is incongruous, isn't it? To build your home on the ruins of someone else's. No wonder Scandinavian dramatists at the turn of the century were always so gloomy; they must have sensed what was coming.
The Fight For The Family:
http://www.nkmr.org/book_tips_the_fight_for_the_family.htm
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Lest We Forget
Men and women have fought and continue to fight for freedom and truth, the freedom and truth that comes from knowing Jesus Christ. I copied the following from an email received in 2005, I want to keep it here as a reminder to us that some things are worth fighting for...
"What is Truth?" the famed Roman procurator cynically asked rhetorically. Few of us have the will to raise the question ourselves. And yet a moment's consideration quickly reveals that truth is our most precious treasure to be coveted. Truth is the key to success, fulfillment, victory, or achieving any worthwhile goal. The pursuit of truth is our greatest challenge in every one of our endeavors.
This "fabulous century" has ushered in astonishing changes in the realms of technology and yet, strangely, it has also probed new depths of darkness with devastating wars and monstrous new weapons, yielding the bloodiest, most revolutionary, most unpredictable century of any in history. Perhaps most fearsome of all, it has also ushered in a wholesale abandonment of truth. In any cultural war, truth is the first casualty.
Early in this century, many "intellectuals" in our society became enamored with the doctrines of Freudianism, the materialism of Feurbach, the nihilism of Nietzsche, the dialectic of Hegel, the communism of Marx, along with Behaviorism, Socialism, Existentialism ("do your own thing"), Rationalism, Fabianism, and Humanism. David Breese's book, Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave, highlights the impacts of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, George Wellhausen, Sigmund Freud, John Maynard Keynes, Soren Kierkegaard and, of course, John Dewey. Through the teachings of John Dewey's humanism, his atheism, amorality, evolution, and one-world socialism permeated our educational system and excluded from our textbooks the moral and Biblical teachings which had been the bedrock of our American culture.
A spiritually apathetic society hardly murmured when on June 25, 1962, citing no precedents, a "liberal" Supreme Court abolished prayer from the public schools (Engle vs. Vitale). One year later, on June 17, 1963, the Supreme Court abolished Bible reading from the schools (Abington vs. Schempp). This week marks the anniversary of those landmark decisions.
The Bible repeatedly portrays a rise in lies and deceit to be a characteristic of the last days (Daniel 8:25). The final world leader will exploit signs and lying wonders (2 Thessalonians 2:9). He will be anticipated by doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1). After all, who is the god of this world? Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 4:4). What is his primary weapon? Deceit (John 8:44; Revelation 12:9).
The high principles that made America great have been lost. There no longer appears to be any connection between character and destiny. People claim that "morals have changed." God makes morals and He didn't change His mind. God hates wickedness.
The manifest contradictions of our present predicament result from so few persons today taking the time to evaluate the issues, agree with the true, and resist the false. Most are borne along by streams of influence managed by others inimical to their interests. Most of the assumptions that govern our society, our nation, and our families demand re-examination. The shock is that they all are false; most from deliberate deceit.
Yet, determining the nature of reality in our world is the cornerstone of our living. A man puts into practice tomorrow what he believes today. To believe in the wrong model of history or the wrong purpose of living can lead to grievous errors, great tragedies, and devastating consequences. The correct-true-view of man, God, and history is the key to sanity, survival, and fulfillment for each of us.
Where do you find truth? If we search diligently we will eventually discover that the "truth" of the world consists of convictions of convenience and political correctness in its many forms. Pandered to us by those who would manipulate us to their own agenda, it proves fragile and crumbles when relied upon; hardly the stuff to build our lives upon.
One definition of truth is when the Word and Deed become one. The ultimate truth is the fulfillment of God's promises in His Messiah. God's Word had committed Him to provide what we need in His Son. Jesus was the fulfillment of that commitment.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6
"What is Truth?" the famed Roman procurator cynically asked rhetorically. Few of us have the will to raise the question ourselves. And yet a moment's consideration quickly reveals that truth is our most precious treasure to be coveted. Truth is the key to success, fulfillment, victory, or achieving any worthwhile goal. The pursuit of truth is our greatest challenge in every one of our endeavors.
This "fabulous century" has ushered in astonishing changes in the realms of technology and yet, strangely, it has also probed new depths of darkness with devastating wars and monstrous new weapons, yielding the bloodiest, most revolutionary, most unpredictable century of any in history. Perhaps most fearsome of all, it has also ushered in a wholesale abandonment of truth. In any cultural war, truth is the first casualty.
Early in this century, many "intellectuals" in our society became enamored with the doctrines of Freudianism, the materialism of Feurbach, the nihilism of Nietzsche, the dialectic of Hegel, the communism of Marx, along with Behaviorism, Socialism, Existentialism ("do your own thing"), Rationalism, Fabianism, and Humanism. David Breese's book, Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave, highlights the impacts of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, George Wellhausen, Sigmund Freud, John Maynard Keynes, Soren Kierkegaard and, of course, John Dewey. Through the teachings of John Dewey's humanism, his atheism, amorality, evolution, and one-world socialism permeated our educational system and excluded from our textbooks the moral and Biblical teachings which had been the bedrock of our American culture.
A spiritually apathetic society hardly murmured when on June 25, 1962, citing no precedents, a "liberal" Supreme Court abolished prayer from the public schools (Engle vs. Vitale). One year later, on June 17, 1963, the Supreme Court abolished Bible reading from the schools (Abington vs. Schempp). This week marks the anniversary of those landmark decisions.
The Bible repeatedly portrays a rise in lies and deceit to be a characteristic of the last days (Daniel 8:25). The final world leader will exploit signs and lying wonders (2 Thessalonians 2:9). He will be anticipated by doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1). After all, who is the god of this world? Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 4:4). What is his primary weapon? Deceit (John 8:44; Revelation 12:9).
The high principles that made America great have been lost. There no longer appears to be any connection between character and destiny. People claim that "morals have changed." God makes morals and He didn't change His mind. God hates wickedness.
The manifest contradictions of our present predicament result from so few persons today taking the time to evaluate the issues, agree with the true, and resist the false. Most are borne along by streams of influence managed by others inimical to their interests. Most of the assumptions that govern our society, our nation, and our families demand re-examination. The shock is that they all are false; most from deliberate deceit.
Yet, determining the nature of reality in our world is the cornerstone of our living. A man puts into practice tomorrow what he believes today. To believe in the wrong model of history or the wrong purpose of living can lead to grievous errors, great tragedies, and devastating consequences. The correct-true-view of man, God, and history is the key to sanity, survival, and fulfillment for each of us.
Where do you find truth? If we search diligently we will eventually discover that the "truth" of the world consists of convictions of convenience and political correctness in its many forms. Pandered to us by those who would manipulate us to their own agenda, it proves fragile and crumbles when relied upon; hardly the stuff to build our lives upon.
One definition of truth is when the Word and Deed become one. The ultimate truth is the fulfillment of God's promises in His Messiah. God's Word had committed Him to provide what we need in His Son. Jesus was the fulfillment of that commitment.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6
Thursday, April 05, 2007
The Lord Is Not Slack In Warming The Globe
He doesn't want anyone going to Hell, He wants everyone in the world to repent of their sins, acknowledge them!
Jesus Christ overcame death and Hell to give us a wonderful hope-filled NEW LIFE (Rom 6:4). He will be coming for the Believer's next time and in His Word The Bible you can read in 2 Peter 3,..."BUT THE DAY OF THE LORD WILL COME AS A THIEF IN THE NIGHT; IN THE WHICH THE HEAVENS SHALL PASS AWAY WITH A GREAT NOISE, AND THE ELEMENTS SHALL MELT WITH FERVENT HEAT, THE EARTH ALSO AND THE WORKS THAT ARE THEREIN SHALL BE BURNED UP... nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness...WOW, bring_ it_ on_Jesus, we have surely seen enough unrighteousness in New Zealand to know that, whatever You havn't built will surely come to nought and be torn down, exposed. 'To EVERY thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...'(From the book of Ecclesiastes chapter 3, in The Holy Bible)
Have a wonderful Easter weekend everyone and may you find true love in Jesus Christ who is alive for you.
Jesus Christ overcame death and Hell to give us a wonderful hope-filled NEW LIFE (Rom 6:4). He will be coming for the Believer's next time and in His Word The Bible you can read in 2 Peter 3,..."BUT THE DAY OF THE LORD WILL COME AS A THIEF IN THE NIGHT; IN THE WHICH THE HEAVENS SHALL PASS AWAY WITH A GREAT NOISE, AND THE ELEMENTS SHALL MELT WITH FERVENT HEAT, THE EARTH ALSO AND THE WORKS THAT ARE THEREIN SHALL BE BURNED UP... nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness...WOW, bring_ it_ on_Jesus, we have surely seen enough unrighteousness in New Zealand to know that, whatever You havn't built will surely come to nought and be torn down, exposed. 'To EVERY thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...'(From the book of Ecclesiastes chapter 3, in The Holy Bible)
Have a wonderful Easter weekend everyone and may you find true love in Jesus Christ who is alive for you.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Please Read This! -From the Family First Office today
7 More Good Reasons Why We Oppose Bradford’s Anti-Smacking Bill -
From the group that's "whipping up hysteria" according to Sue Bradford - because we're presenting the Facts!!
1. No decent research shows smack by a loving parent breeds violence
Otago University study 2006 – children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all.
Fergusson and Lynskey (Christchurch School of Medicine) – found no difference between no smacking and moderate physical punishment “ It is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences”
2. UNICEF reports prove there is no link between smacking and child abuse
2003 UNICEF report on maltreatment deaths.
Of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates in the UNICEF report, four allow smacking !
Austria banned smacking in 1989 – is the 5th highest for child abuse death rates
2007 Report released last week : “the likelihood of a child being injured or killed is associated with poverty, single-parenthood, low maternal education, low maternal age at birth, poor housing, weak family ties, and parental drug or alcohol abuse.”
The safest country for children is Netherlands – hasn’t banned smacking . Of the 10 top countries, 6 haven’t banned smacking.
The 2006 CYF report “Children at Increased Risk of Death from Maltreatment and Strategies for Prevention”
identified the factors which signaled greater risk for children including poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and family breakdown. Statistics also showed that children living in households with an adult unrelated to them were almost 50 times as likely to die of an inflicted injury as those living with two biological parents!
Example: Just one of the real causes - Substance Abuse
UNICEF report 2003 - Child welfare professionals – 80% said “substance abuse causes or contributes to at least half of all cases of child maltreatment”
85% of States in US report substance abuse and poverty leading problems in families reported for abuse
Substance abuse triples risk for child maltreatment
3. Sweden experience is a warning to us
Child abuse increased 489% in 13 years following ban - Assaults by kids against kids increased 672%
2000 Swedish Govt report – “we see no tendency to a decrease in bullying at school or in leisure time during the last 20 years”
Sweden’s Foster Care rate is double NZ’s – twice as many kids being removed from their families
European Crime and Safety Safety – UN, Euro Commission – published this month - Sweden has one of the worst assault and sexual violence rates in EU
Lies.....
Around one child a month dies at the hands of a parent or caregiver in New Zealand. In Sweden, the average annual deaths attributable to child abuse for the past 30 years or so has been less than one every four years. - Document circulated on behalf of Barnadoes, Plunket, Save the Children, Children’s Commissioner and EPOCH last year
“The rate of child homicide & in Sweden is something like one every 4 years” - Sue Bradford on TVNZ’s Close Up 19 July 2006
• “Dr Kiro says people need to realise since Sweden banned physical punishment in 1976, only four children died in the following 20 years”
Children’s Commissioner speaks out against culture of violence – Press Release - Dr Cindy Kiro - 03/11/2004
The Truth
Morgan Johansson, Swedish public health minister, said (2006)
"Every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years,"
4. Polls
Averaged out, polls show that 80% of us want to keep the status quo. Politicians need to listen to the people.
5. Police won’t prosecute
Domestic Violence Policy currently being enforced by Police strongly encourages arrest at the time and denies Police Diversion except where authorised by the District Commander. Diversions are rarely given for domestic violence matters. The Police Association admitted today (21 Feb) that they will have to investigate any complaint.
As noted by Cabinet, anyone may bring a prosecution for breach of criminal law e.g. lobby group could bring private prosecution against smack or removal to ‘time out’ – not determined by Police
6. Are the Greens serious about stopping child abuse?
2003: P (Methamphetamine) reclassified as a Class A drug – only the Greens opposed
2006: Opposed an increase to the Drinking Age
2005: Intentional Possession of Child Pornography (the worst of child abuse) –Only the Greens opposed the maximum penalty being 5 years – wanted it lower at 2 years
2007: Want to decriminalise Marijuana
SOFT ON THE REAL CAUSES OF CHILD ABUSE YET THEY WANT TO CRIMINALISE PARENTS WHO GIVE THEIR KIDS A SMACK
7. Smacking isn’t violence – it’s correction
Children are already protected from violence and assault through the Crimes Act
Smacking is in harmony with nature – pain teaches e.g a child teases a dog, they get a dog bite – a child touches the hot element, they get burnt – they take their hands off the handles of the bike – they crash!
Does this teach a child to be a violent person? NO!
A Reasonable smack from loving parent is great teaching tool
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz
From the group that's "whipping up hysteria" according to Sue Bradford - because we're presenting the Facts!!
1. No decent research shows smack by a loving parent breeds violence
Otago University study 2006 – children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all.
Fergusson and Lynskey (Christchurch School of Medicine) – found no difference between no smacking and moderate physical punishment “ It is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences”
2. UNICEF reports prove there is no link between smacking and child abuse
2003 UNICEF report on maltreatment deaths.
Of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates in the UNICEF report, four allow smacking !
Austria banned smacking in 1989 – is the 5th highest for child abuse death rates
2007 Report released last week : “the likelihood of a child being injured or killed is associated with poverty, single-parenthood, low maternal education, low maternal age at birth, poor housing, weak family ties, and parental drug or alcohol abuse.”
The safest country for children is Netherlands – hasn’t banned smacking . Of the 10 top countries, 6 haven’t banned smacking.
The 2006 CYF report “Children at Increased Risk of Death from Maltreatment and Strategies for Prevention”
identified the factors which signaled greater risk for children including poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and family breakdown. Statistics also showed that children living in households with an adult unrelated to them were almost 50 times as likely to die of an inflicted injury as those living with two biological parents!
Example: Just one of the real causes - Substance Abuse
UNICEF report 2003 - Child welfare professionals – 80% said “substance abuse causes or contributes to at least half of all cases of child maltreatment”
85% of States in US report substance abuse and poverty leading problems in families reported for abuse
Substance abuse triples risk for child maltreatment
3. Sweden experience is a warning to us
Child abuse increased 489% in 13 years following ban - Assaults by kids against kids increased 672%
2000 Swedish Govt report – “we see no tendency to a decrease in bullying at school or in leisure time during the last 20 years”
Sweden’s Foster Care rate is double NZ’s – twice as many kids being removed from their families
European Crime and Safety Safety – UN, Euro Commission – published this month - Sweden has one of the worst assault and sexual violence rates in EU
Lies.....
Around one child a month dies at the hands of a parent or caregiver in New Zealand. In Sweden, the average annual deaths attributable to child abuse for the past 30 years or so has been less than one every four years. - Document circulated on behalf of Barnadoes, Plunket, Save the Children, Children’s Commissioner and EPOCH last year
“The rate of child homicide & in Sweden is something like one every 4 years” - Sue Bradford on TVNZ’s Close Up 19 July 2006
• “Dr Kiro says people need to realise since Sweden banned physical punishment in 1976, only four children died in the following 20 years”
Children’s Commissioner speaks out against culture of violence – Press Release - Dr Cindy Kiro - 03/11/2004
The Truth
Morgan Johansson, Swedish public health minister, said (2006)
"Every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years,"
4. Polls
Averaged out, polls show that 80% of us want to keep the status quo. Politicians need to listen to the people.
5. Police won’t prosecute
Domestic Violence Policy currently being enforced by Police strongly encourages arrest at the time and denies Police Diversion except where authorised by the District Commander. Diversions are rarely given for domestic violence matters. The Police Association admitted today (21 Feb) that they will have to investigate any complaint.
As noted by Cabinet, anyone may bring a prosecution for breach of criminal law e.g. lobby group could bring private prosecution against smack or removal to ‘time out’ – not determined by Police
6. Are the Greens serious about stopping child abuse?
2003: P (Methamphetamine) reclassified as a Class A drug – only the Greens opposed
2006: Opposed an increase to the Drinking Age
2005: Intentional Possession of Child Pornography (the worst of child abuse) –Only the Greens opposed the maximum penalty being 5 years – wanted it lower at 2 years
2007: Want to decriminalise Marijuana
SOFT ON THE REAL CAUSES OF CHILD ABUSE YET THEY WANT TO CRIMINALISE PARENTS WHO GIVE THEIR KIDS A SMACK
7. Smacking isn’t violence – it’s correction
Children are already protected from violence and assault through the Crimes Act
Smacking is in harmony with nature – pain teaches e.g a child teases a dog, they get a dog bite – a child touches the hot element, they get burnt – they take their hands off the handles of the bike – they crash!
Does this teach a child to be a violent person? NO!
A Reasonable smack from loving parent is great teaching tool
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz
Monday, January 08, 2007
Law Versus Grace
The problem with lawmaker's giving grace to prisoners convicted of crimes of murder, is that God looks upon the heart of a man but man can only look on the outside of him/her. So when the lawmaker's allow leniency to murderer's they will almost always get it horribly wrong. Such is the case with a man, a convicted murderer, allowed to walk free on parole and murder another innocent person, in Wellington yesterday.
So, this will continue to happen when successive so called 'secular' parliaments, continue to enact law that reflects God's grace. Only God can truly exercise that right.
So, this will continue to happen when successive so called 'secular' parliaments, continue to enact law that reflects God's grace. Only God can truly exercise that right.
Friday, December 22, 2006
The Boy Child Not To Be Ignored
Jesus came to earth with the keys to life and death, will you choose life?
From the book of Isaiah, chapter 55, there's these words: Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.
Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near.
Have a joyful Christmas everyone, the most precious gift of all is free, and it is, Hope in the Lord, Amen?
From the book of Isaiah, chapter 55, there's these words: Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.
Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near.
Have a joyful Christmas everyone, the most precious gift of all is free, and it is, Hope in the Lord, Amen?
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
More Confusion in these Last Days...
A Bloggin Minute
Wednesday » November 29 » 2006
Losing the right to a mommy and daddy
Barbara Kay
National Post
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
"Ibelieve children have the right to a mother and a father, and preferably their biological parents." These words -- I agree with them, and so do the UN Conventions of the Child -- were once the equivalent of saying you believed in peace on Earth and goodwill toward men.
But in postmodern societies obsessed with gender equity, as ours has been for the past quarter-century, "mother and father" and "biological parents" have become politically incorrect locutions when joined to "children's rights." Just ask the author of my opening statement, the McGill University bioethicist Margaret Somerville, whose honorary doctorate at Ryerson College last June was jeopardized on its account.
"Words matter," says Elizabeth Marquardt in an interview. Marquardt, the author of Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce, is a Chicago-based affiliate scholar at the Institute for American Values, and director of the Center for Marriage and Families. She is the keynote speaker in Ottawa tomorrow at the Institute of Marriage and Family's first annual family policy conference, a one-day session addressing a 50-strong complement of MPs, senior staff, NGO representatives and other decision-makers around social policy and family issues. Her topic: "The Revolution in Parenthood -- The Emerging Global Clash between Adult Rights and Children's Needs."
By "words matter," Marquardt is referring to Canada's gay marriage law, Bill C-38, which includes a provision to erase the term "natural parent" and replace it across the board with "legal parent" in federal law. At one stroke, she says, the locus of power in identifying a child's parents precipitously shifted to the state, from the civil society that preceded it.
In her report, released Monday across North America and Europe, Marquardt details the ripple effect from emerging reproductive technologies and gender-neutral redefinitions of parenthood. Her research revolved around the question of "Who is parenthood for -- adults or children?" She cites troubling global evidence that adults' rights are privileged over children's. Among many diverse examples: In New Zealand and Australia, influential law commissions propose that children conceived through sperm or egg donation have three legal parents; in Quebec the female partner of a biological mother in a same-sex union is noted as the "father" on the birth certificate; judges in several states in the U.S. have seized on the notion of "psychological" parenthood to award legal parent status to adults (invariably women) not related to the child by blood, adoption or marriage.
When the cultural zeitgeist dictates that children's interests can be fully served in any caring environment, who are the winners and who the losers in the switch from natural to legal parenthood? The winners are homosexual couples, single women seeking social approval for mate-free motherhood, as well as ideologues promoting state control of social norms and the de facto feminization of society. The losers are children -- especially at-risk boys, whose social failures are disproportionately linked to fatherlessness -- and fathers, who through law and cultural attitudes are relegated to virtual dhimmi status in a female-controlled social order.
Marquardt conducted extensive interviews with adult children conceived through sperm donation by strangers, a first in this field of research. Many reveal the negative effects of fatherhood's marginalized role: Some subjects call themselves "lopsided" or "half-adopted" or, in cases of lesbian unions, "queer spawn." One used the term "kinship slaves." Joanna Rose, an Australian interviewee, asks why everyone "flips out" when the wrong baby is taken home from hospital, but assumes donor-conceived children are fine: "I believe that the pain of infertility should not be appeased at the expense of the next generation."
This report -- whose findings range far beyond the parameters of a single column -- is, with a promised second look at gay marriage legislation in prospect, a timely springboard to public discussion and debate. Marquardt concludes, "When society changes marriage, it changes parenthood.... The legalization of same-sex marriage, while sometimes seen as a small change affecting just a few people, raises the startling prospect of fundamentally breaking the legal institution of marriage from any ties to biological parenthood."
Words do indeed matter. Ponder the implications of these: Honour thy Progenitor A and thy Progenitor B (and, where applicable, Progenitor C). Brave new world -- or a postmodern version of child sacrifice on the altar of neo-pagan deities Feminism and Gender Equity?
bkay@videotron.ca
© National Post 2006
Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Wednesday » November 29 » 2006
Losing the right to a mommy and daddy
Barbara Kay
National Post
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
"Ibelieve children have the right to a mother and a father, and preferably their biological parents." These words -- I agree with them, and so do the UN Conventions of the Child -- were once the equivalent of saying you believed in peace on Earth and goodwill toward men.
But in postmodern societies obsessed with gender equity, as ours has been for the past quarter-century, "mother and father" and "biological parents" have become politically incorrect locutions when joined to "children's rights." Just ask the author of my opening statement, the McGill University bioethicist Margaret Somerville, whose honorary doctorate at Ryerson College last June was jeopardized on its account.
"Words matter," says Elizabeth Marquardt in an interview. Marquardt, the author of Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce, is a Chicago-based affiliate scholar at the Institute for American Values, and director of the Center for Marriage and Families. She is the keynote speaker in Ottawa tomorrow at the Institute of Marriage and Family's first annual family policy conference, a one-day session addressing a 50-strong complement of MPs, senior staff, NGO representatives and other decision-makers around social policy and family issues. Her topic: "The Revolution in Parenthood -- The Emerging Global Clash between Adult Rights and Children's Needs."
By "words matter," Marquardt is referring to Canada's gay marriage law, Bill C-38, which includes a provision to erase the term "natural parent" and replace it across the board with "legal parent" in federal law. At one stroke, she says, the locus of power in identifying a child's parents precipitously shifted to the state, from the civil society that preceded it.
In her report, released Monday across North America and Europe, Marquardt details the ripple effect from emerging reproductive technologies and gender-neutral redefinitions of parenthood. Her research revolved around the question of "Who is parenthood for -- adults or children?" She cites troubling global evidence that adults' rights are privileged over children's. Among many diverse examples: In New Zealand and Australia, influential law commissions propose that children conceived through sperm or egg donation have three legal parents; in Quebec the female partner of a biological mother in a same-sex union is noted as the "father" on the birth certificate; judges in several states in the U.S. have seized on the notion of "psychological" parenthood to award legal parent status to adults (invariably women) not related to the child by blood, adoption or marriage.
When the cultural zeitgeist dictates that children's interests can be fully served in any caring environment, who are the winners and who the losers in the switch from natural to legal parenthood? The winners are homosexual couples, single women seeking social approval for mate-free motherhood, as well as ideologues promoting state control of social norms and the de facto feminization of society. The losers are children -- especially at-risk boys, whose social failures are disproportionately linked to fatherlessness -- and fathers, who through law and cultural attitudes are relegated to virtual dhimmi status in a female-controlled social order.
Marquardt conducted extensive interviews with adult children conceived through sperm donation by strangers, a first in this field of research. Many reveal the negative effects of fatherhood's marginalized role: Some subjects call themselves "lopsided" or "half-adopted" or, in cases of lesbian unions, "queer spawn." One used the term "kinship slaves." Joanna Rose, an Australian interviewee, asks why everyone "flips out" when the wrong baby is taken home from hospital, but assumes donor-conceived children are fine: "I believe that the pain of infertility should not be appeased at the expense of the next generation."
This report -- whose findings range far beyond the parameters of a single column -- is, with a promised second look at gay marriage legislation in prospect, a timely springboard to public discussion and debate. Marquardt concludes, "When society changes marriage, it changes parenthood.... The legalization of same-sex marriage, while sometimes seen as a small change affecting just a few people, raises the startling prospect of fundamentally breaking the legal institution of marriage from any ties to biological parenthood."
Words do indeed matter. Ponder the implications of these: Honour thy Progenitor A and thy Progenitor B (and, where applicable, Progenitor C). Brave new world -- or a postmodern version of child sacrifice on the altar of neo-pagan deities Feminism and Gender Equity?
bkay@videotron.ca
© National Post 2006
Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
When Government Cared
My generation had it pretty good, we were brought up with some safeguards ready in place for our wellbeing. It sure wasn't perfect but looking back it was good.
I'm remembering the days when: it was illegal to make booze such as whiskey, gin, vodka etc.; when it was illegal to gamble beyond the odd housie game or horse racing, controlled by Government; when prostitution was illegal and our women, men and children were valued beyond being meat markets and playthings for every degenerate around; when pornography was not allowed to be imported, made or televised because we were considered valuable in someones eyes; when songs had the "F" word in it, they were banned from the airwaves; when practicing homosexuality was illegal; when shooting-up on drugs was considered so dangerous, syringes were kept under lock and key; when sexually transmitted diseases were just that, diseases and they were considered punishment for the sin of having multiple sex partners; murders were few and far between and they were always front page news in the newspapers; children didn't do murder; when elderly men and women were respected and you helped them, you gave up your seat on a bus for them and you sure didn't beat an eighty year old woman or rape her; we needed every baby New Zealander so much that we didn't murder them in the womb, abortion was illegal; we couldn't buy alcohol nor step foot ON a licenced establishment until you were 21. Oh yes, we were valued back then by the lawmakers. So now, just short of anarchy what will become of our next generation?
I'm remembering the days when: it was illegal to make booze such as whiskey, gin, vodka etc.; when it was illegal to gamble beyond the odd housie game or horse racing, controlled by Government; when prostitution was illegal and our women, men and children were valued beyond being meat markets and playthings for every degenerate around; when pornography was not allowed to be imported, made or televised because we were considered valuable in someones eyes; when songs had the "F" word in it, they were banned from the airwaves; when practicing homosexuality was illegal; when shooting-up on drugs was considered so dangerous, syringes were kept under lock and key; when sexually transmitted diseases were just that, diseases and they were considered punishment for the sin of having multiple sex partners; murders were few and far between and they were always front page news in the newspapers; children didn't do murder; when elderly men and women were respected and you helped them, you gave up your seat on a bus for them and you sure didn't beat an eighty year old woman or rape her; we needed every baby New Zealander so much that we didn't murder them in the womb, abortion was illegal; we couldn't buy alcohol nor step foot ON a licenced establishment until you were 21. Oh yes, we were valued back then by the lawmakers. So now, just short of anarchy what will become of our next generation?
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
No Longer your own Carstle
There's more Wearing Down to be done in this part of te globe.. now the Vehicular Police will have the Smoke Detect Cameras on the roadsides of New Zealand and look out if you are caught smoking cigarettes in your very own CARstle! Personally I wouldn't choose to take a ride in any car that reeks of tobacco or any other smoke but, if my car were to break down in the middle of a night and I was offered a lift with someone hooked on tobacco, hey, I'd take the ride alrightty! People who smoke ciggies are generally good ordinary salt-of-the-earth types who, generally love others and generally care about others too, except they cannot see the harm their smoke does to their lungs or anothers'...but.. they'd more than likely give you the shirt off their back, but probably not their last cigarette though :) So, why pick on the remnant of smokers who are already either rebelling hard-out and paying exorbitant prices for their cough or, are struggling to quit altogether?
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Eternally Webbed
I heard a man on TV recently, I hear many just like him..he was telling viewers that whatever one puts up onto the WorldWideWeb stays there and will be/can be used against them in the coming years.
So, shaking in my slippers tonight (NOT!) I am again putting something up onto the eternal web!
And it is this! I smacked my son today, he called me a bitch and I will smack my son EVERY time he calls me a bitch and nobody will tell me I cannot smack my child! Not a lesbian, not a homosexual, not a woman whom God has closed the womb of, not a male politician, (they might soon be a minority...) NO ONE, now take notice, this will be on my record for eternity and some of you know me right? Those who have used their deduction powers, lol. So, make my day and arrest me in the days to come.
I heard someone else today in the news media, he is a representative of a Father's group and he is most concerned with the agenda of homosexual/lesbian and liberal groups who have taken it upon themselves to usurp our authority over OUR OWN CHILDREN! How the hell did this happen? Well it is because there are some New Zealand men who are more concerned with rugby and grog than they are with caring and loving their wives and children, and some havn't even honoured their wives yet and married them the way only a man and a woman can be married! It's about time we got our families back together and into the God-intended purpose for living this life.
So, shaking in my slippers tonight (NOT!) I am again putting something up onto the eternal web!
And it is this! I smacked my son today, he called me a bitch and I will smack my son EVERY time he calls me a bitch and nobody will tell me I cannot smack my child! Not a lesbian, not a homosexual, not a woman whom God has closed the womb of, not a male politician, (they might soon be a minority...) NO ONE, now take notice, this will be on my record for eternity and some of you know me right? Those who have used their deduction powers, lol. So, make my day and arrest me in the days to come.
I heard someone else today in the news media, he is a representative of a Father's group and he is most concerned with the agenda of homosexual/lesbian and liberal groups who have taken it upon themselves to usurp our authority over OUR OWN CHILDREN! How the hell did this happen? Well it is because there are some New Zealand men who are more concerned with rugby and grog than they are with caring and loving their wives and children, and some havn't even honoured their wives yet and married them the way only a man and a woman can be married! It's about time we got our families back together and into the God-intended purpose for living this life.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Worrying Gene
A Bloggin MinuteThey (scientist's) say they have identified a gene in Maori (and some other ethnic groups) that can make them more violent and aggressive and more likely to become addicted to harmful substances. They have dubbed it the "Warrior Gene".
God calls this worrying gene SIN and the only remedy for it is for the sinner to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour over their whole life.
He was sacrificed on the Cross for not only Maori sinners but all peoples of the world, because everyone has the propensity to murder, maim, tell lies be addicted to gambling or drugs... Everyone can have their known or as yet, uncovered sins forgiven and their slate wiped clean.
Check out http://www.harvest.org
God calls this worrying gene SIN and the only remedy for it is for the sinner to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour over their whole life.
He was sacrificed on the Cross for not only Maori sinners but all peoples of the world, because everyone has the propensity to murder, maim, tell lies be addicted to gambling or drugs... Everyone can have their known or as yet, uncovered sins forgiven and their slate wiped clean.
Check out http://www.harvest.org
Monday, July 10, 2006
Too Precious To Delete
I found a bird sheltering from the driving wind and rain under a sun-lounge chair that should have been put away at least one month before. But if it had there would have been no shelter and I wouldn't have been able to capture in a photo and in my mind, that little bird huddled there waiting for the storm to subside and it could get back to pecking the worms out of the lawn for it's breakfast. It is just as well I have the gorgeous image etched in my mind because in the photograph the birdy is barely visible. My sonshines reckon I should delete it off my camera but for now it remains, a reminder that some things are too precious to delete.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Without Hope and Killing nga Tamariki
A Bloggin MinuteTwin babies have been killed by their whanau or caregivers and it's sad to think that maybe they could have been spared if the ones entrusted with their care had 'found God' through a church that organised the 'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH' protests. I say "could have found God" because the media and various Members of Parliament came out and callously slandered the Christ- loving church (Destiny church) for having the 'audacity' to speak out about the moral degeneration of our small country.
It will be God who will bring an end to the bashings and killings, not an act of Parliament nor more money thrown at Social Service agencies already struggling with the burden of a society gone wrong. The Destiny church (NZ) has a proven track record of bringing the hope of Christ to the lost and the outcast and should be honoured, and those who would dare to call what is 'good' evil, have their agendas exposed in the very media that supports them.
"What Can We Do For The Kahuis" this from this weeks Real Issues email from www.maxim.org.nz
The nation has been transfixed this week by the tragic deaths of Chris and Cru Kahui. They join a long list of children killed in this country, many by their own families. We are stunned by such evil, and we rush to find someone to blame: the family, the Plunket nurse, the social worker, the hospital, the fragmented state of government services. This family has fallen off the top of every cliff there is, and we want to know who was in charge of the fencing.
But as the politicians promise a cross-party working group and CYFS review their procedures, it is easy to lose track of a few things. The most important is that Chris and Cru were killed by a person, not a race, not a context, nor a system. There are many beneficiaries, many poor, many unemployed, many alcoholics and many people from dysfunctional families of all races, who do not and will not kill their children. It is the perpetrator of this crime who is truly responsible.
No law can force people to be good, but the government can weaken or strengthen those things which restrain, encourage and warn. It can set a context in which it is easy or hard to be good, in which it is easy or hard to abuse. Research has shown us many of the factors which set the context of abuse: family breakdown, the loss of biological connection, poverty, unemployment, teen pregnancy, educational failure, substance abuse and ill-health, to name a few. The government can examine what it is doing in those areas to strengthen families, remove rigid laws and promote good ones.
An individual's decision to obey the law is shaped by the family, community and culture to which they belong. The bonds of affection, shame and conscience which are forged by that culture restrain most of us. They snapped this time, for this family. When we ask who is responsible, and what we can do, it is helpful to remember that the government can only do so much to shape the environment in which a person lives. Bonds of affection and strength of character are built by neighbours and friends, by churches and sports clubs and schools, by families and community initiatives. If we want to make them stronger, perhaps we should begin there.
It will be God who will bring an end to the bashings and killings, not an act of Parliament nor more money thrown at Social Service agencies already struggling with the burden of a society gone wrong. The Destiny church (NZ) has a proven track record of bringing the hope of Christ to the lost and the outcast and should be honoured, and those who would dare to call what is 'good' evil, have their agendas exposed in the very media that supports them.
"What Can We Do For The Kahuis" this from this weeks Real Issues email from www.maxim.org.nz
The nation has been transfixed this week by the tragic deaths of Chris and Cru Kahui. They join a long list of children killed in this country, many by their own families. We are stunned by such evil, and we rush to find someone to blame: the family, the Plunket nurse, the social worker, the hospital, the fragmented state of government services. This family has fallen off the top of every cliff there is, and we want to know who was in charge of the fencing.
But as the politicians promise a cross-party working group and CYFS review their procedures, it is easy to lose track of a few things. The most important is that Chris and Cru were killed by a person, not a race, not a context, nor a system. There are many beneficiaries, many poor, many unemployed, many alcoholics and many people from dysfunctional families of all races, who do not and will not kill their children. It is the perpetrator of this crime who is truly responsible.
No law can force people to be good, but the government can weaken or strengthen those things which restrain, encourage and warn. It can set a context in which it is easy or hard to be good, in which it is easy or hard to abuse. Research has shown us many of the factors which set the context of abuse: family breakdown, the loss of biological connection, poverty, unemployment, teen pregnancy, educational failure, substance abuse and ill-health, to name a few. The government can examine what it is doing in those areas to strengthen families, remove rigid laws and promote good ones.
An individual's decision to obey the law is shaped by the family, community and culture to which they belong. The bonds of affection, shame and conscience which are forged by that culture restrain most of us. They snapped this time, for this family. When we ask who is responsible, and what we can do, it is helpful to remember that the government can only do so much to shape the environment in which a person lives. Bonds of affection and strength of character are built by neighbours and friends, by churches and sports clubs and schools, by families and community initiatives. If we want to make them stronger, perhaps we should begin there.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Confusion Era...
A Bloggin Minute
A new teaching manual available for use in some Australian schools has courted controversy, by advising teachers to scrap the words "mother" and "father", in favour of "carer" or "parent" when talking about families. The manual also advises the use of gender neutral toys, and books and activities which promote alternative family forms.
The manual, titled Learn to Include: Learning about diverse families in a primary school setting, is aimed at classes from Kindergarten to Year Three, and is funded by the crime prevention division of the New South Wales Attorney General's Department, in an attempt to increase children's sensitivity to a "diversity" of family forms.
The elimination of universally accepted concepts like "mother" and "father" in favour of the neutral "parent" or "carer" removes the essential element of relational connection which comes from being part of an intergenerational family, belonging to a mum and a dad. This approach ends up dismantling the normative framework in which children see family life.
In the first few years of school, children are formulating ideas about themselves, the world, and their place in it. Seeing oneself in relation to a mother and a father is a part of this. All children have a mother and a father, and the majority are still raised by their mum and dad. Attempting to hide this fact does a disservice to all children, regardless of their personal family background. In search of a spurious and artificial 'equality', the realities of life and the natural framework through which to view it can both be obscured.
....And just when you thought you'd heard it all, there's more...
Following the government's law change mandating the compulsory microchipping of dogs, from Lassie the farm dog to Fifi the poodle, other animals are on the agenda, as the government continues to implement its Wildlife Registration Strategy.
According to latest reports, cats will be microchipped by 2008, followed by rabbits, canaries, goldfish and 'other dangerous predators' by 2012.
"We are very concerned at the wanton and unregulated carnage going on in the environment, and we are determined to do something about it", said Ministry of Wildlife Affairs spokeswoman Bledin Hart.
"We will follow the same approach as dog microchipping" said the power-suited Ms. Hart brightly to Our Reporter, as she sat in her Wellington office,
"There is a very simple chain of logic here. The microchip will be designed to be read at a range of 2 inches. This means that, after the cat kills the baby kakapo, and if there's a DOC ranger around, and if the cat hasn't run away, and if we can catch it, then, well, provided we've got a machine, of course, then, we'll be able to see who the cat belongs to, and send the owner a very strongly worded letter indeed. A jolly good telling off, you might say." She laughs merrily, and pauses. "Unless the owner has been rather naughty, of course, and hasn't paid his registration fee".
Confederated Cat Owners spokesman A. Farmer, speaking at the Show in Gore, called the proposal "ridiculous", as "half of cat owners do not register their cats already. A $110 dollar fee is going to mean fewer registrations, all for a useless microchip that will not save one kakapo".
This does not phase Ms. Hart. "It's about interspecies partnership" she says, with an embracing gesture. "I'm sure it's going to be best for all the members of our ecological family in the long run".
These items were received in the latest "REAL ISSUES" email received from MAXIM INSTITUTE NEW ZEALAND.
If you'd like to receive them weekly sign up here: http://www.maxim.org.nz
A new teaching manual available for use in some Australian schools has courted controversy, by advising teachers to scrap the words "mother" and "father", in favour of "carer" or "parent" when talking about families. The manual also advises the use of gender neutral toys, and books and activities which promote alternative family forms.
The manual, titled Learn to Include: Learning about diverse families in a primary school setting, is aimed at classes from Kindergarten to Year Three, and is funded by the crime prevention division of the New South Wales Attorney General's Department, in an attempt to increase children's sensitivity to a "diversity" of family forms.
The elimination of universally accepted concepts like "mother" and "father" in favour of the neutral "parent" or "carer" removes the essential element of relational connection which comes from being part of an intergenerational family, belonging to a mum and a dad. This approach ends up dismantling the normative framework in which children see family life.
In the first few years of school, children are formulating ideas about themselves, the world, and their place in it. Seeing oneself in relation to a mother and a father is a part of this. All children have a mother and a father, and the majority are still raised by their mum and dad. Attempting to hide this fact does a disservice to all children, regardless of their personal family background. In search of a spurious and artificial 'equality', the realities of life and the natural framework through which to view it can both be obscured.
....And just when you thought you'd heard it all, there's more...
Following the government's law change mandating the compulsory microchipping of dogs, from Lassie the farm dog to Fifi the poodle, other animals are on the agenda, as the government continues to implement its Wildlife Registration Strategy.
According to latest reports, cats will be microchipped by 2008, followed by rabbits, canaries, goldfish and 'other dangerous predators' by 2012.
"We are very concerned at the wanton and unregulated carnage going on in the environment, and we are determined to do something about it", said Ministry of Wildlife Affairs spokeswoman Bledin Hart.
"We will follow the same approach as dog microchipping" said the power-suited Ms. Hart brightly to Our Reporter, as she sat in her Wellington office,
"There is a very simple chain of logic here. The microchip will be designed to be read at a range of 2 inches. This means that, after the cat kills the baby kakapo, and if there's a DOC ranger around, and if the cat hasn't run away, and if we can catch it, then, well, provided we've got a machine, of course, then, we'll be able to see who the cat belongs to, and send the owner a very strongly worded letter indeed. A jolly good telling off, you might say." She laughs merrily, and pauses. "Unless the owner has been rather naughty, of course, and hasn't paid his registration fee".
Confederated Cat Owners spokesman A. Farmer, speaking at the Show in Gore, called the proposal "ridiculous", as "half of cat owners do not register their cats already. A $110 dollar fee is going to mean fewer registrations, all for a useless microchip that will not save one kakapo".
This does not phase Ms. Hart. "It's about interspecies partnership" she says, with an embracing gesture. "I'm sure it's going to be best for all the members of our ecological family in the long run".
These items were received in the latest "REAL ISSUES" email received from MAXIM INSTITUTE NEW ZEALAND.
If you'd like to receive them weekly sign up here: http://www.maxim.org.nz
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
A Website Teens (& mums and dads) Can Trust
Here is a website you can fully trust for teens to sort out some everyday problems. Different from the sex education taught in NZ schools, these people can be trusted to deliver messages that will serve to save you from heaps of sorrow and there is definitely NO HIDDEN AGENDA, in other words, they won't teach you that homosexuality is normal for instance.
Go to: http://www.attitude.org.nz
Go to: http://www.attitude.org.nz
Friday, June 02, 2006
The Missing Ingredient IS Love
A Bloggin MinuteThursday, June 1, 2006
Where Is the Love in Sex Education?
Writers Opinion
By Dr. Ted Baehr, Publisher of MOVIEGUIDE®
HOLLYWOOD, CA (ANS) -- Every year, I have the opportunity to speak in different countries on how to make media-wise families. This year was Ukraine, which I visited a few weeks ago as part of the International Congress of the Family.
The problems in Ukraine are immense. Ukraine has the highest HIV/AIDS rate in Europe, a large white slavery prostitution trade, high alcoholism, and low wages. Its beautiful women are renowned around the world, but mainly as sex slaves and mail-order-brides in other countries.
In the midst of the conference on family issues, some of the government officials were proud that they had introduced American initiated sex education.
MOVIEGUIDE® has carried many articles exposing the fallacy of sex education. As Dr. Judith Reisman and other scientists have shown, sex education not only shows young people how to do it but also gets them excited about doing it. Thus, MOVIEGUIDE® supports abstinence, which has been proven to work, if taught properly.
But, it occurred to me, hearing about the abuses in the porn industry and the orphanages in Ukraine, that what we should propose is Love Education, which we all need. Love Education helps children learn that real satisfaction comes not from lust, which is self-centered, avaricious and often thoughtless, but from Love, which cares for the other person, supports the other person, builds memories that last, and gives long-lasting joy.
Where do we find Love Education? In the flesh, we find it in Jesus Christ, and, for more detailed information, we have the New Testament, which is the Word of God.
At its Ukraine conference, the International Congress of the Family discussed everything from sexually transmitted diseases to family planning, to the dignity of life, to the basics of sustaining a good marriage, to the importance of Christian faith.
One of their biggest concerns, however, was the influence of the western media. I was able to address those concerns and teach them the first steps toward media wisdom. Many people asked for permission to translate my MEDIA-WISE FAMILY book and its into Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Polish, etc.
In the battle for the culture, we often focus on the conflict between the various secular worldviews such as materialism and socialism. In its visit to Ukraine, however, the Congress showed that the most important worldview in winning the culture wars and redeeming the values of the media is the Christian faith and its foundation on strong biblical principles. This faith and these principles can teach everyone how to live a better life, not only in Ukraine but throughout the whole world.
What a difference it would make if sex education courses were replaced by Christian Love Education courses! And, what a difference it would make if the mass media promoted Christian Love Education rather than lustful sex education!
Divorce rates would go down, AIDS rates would go down, and abandoned children would find loving homes. Best of all, the joy of giving would melt the Scrooge-like hearts of the opulent societies of the West, including the lust-minded executives in the mass media of entertainment.
Of course, with God, all things are possible.
(c) baehr, 2006
NOTE from Dr. Ted Baehr: For more information from a Christian perspective, order the latest MOVIEGUIDE® magazine by calling 1-800-899-6684(MOVI) or visit our website at www.movieguide.org. MOVIEGUIDE® is dedicated to redeeming the values of Hollywood by informing parents about today's movies and entertainment and by showing media executives and artists that family-friendly and even Christian-friendly movies do best at the box office year in and year out. MOVIEGUIDE® now offers an online subscription to its magazine version, at www.movieguide.org. The magazine, which comes out 25 times a year, contains many informative articles and reviews that help parents train their children to be media-wise consumers. MOVIEGUIDE® also regularly broadcasts several international TV and radio programs hosted by Dr. Baehr. Also, if you want to train your family to be media-wise, call 1-800-89 9-6684 in North America to order the book, video or audio version of THE MEDIA-WISE! FAMILY, Dr. Ted Baehr's latest book. © baehr, 2001
Where Is the Love in Sex Education?
Writers Opinion
By Dr. Ted Baehr, Publisher of MOVIEGUIDE®
HOLLYWOOD, CA (ANS) -- Every year, I have the opportunity to speak in different countries on how to make media-wise families. This year was Ukraine, which I visited a few weeks ago as part of the International Congress of the Family.
The problems in Ukraine are immense. Ukraine has the highest HIV/AIDS rate in Europe, a large white slavery prostitution trade, high alcoholism, and low wages. Its beautiful women are renowned around the world, but mainly as sex slaves and mail-order-brides in other countries.
In the midst of the conference on family issues, some of the government officials were proud that they had introduced American initiated sex education.
MOVIEGUIDE® has carried many articles exposing the fallacy of sex education. As Dr. Judith Reisman and other scientists have shown, sex education not only shows young people how to do it but also gets them excited about doing it. Thus, MOVIEGUIDE® supports abstinence, which has been proven to work, if taught properly.
But, it occurred to me, hearing about the abuses in the porn industry and the orphanages in Ukraine, that what we should propose is Love Education, which we all need. Love Education helps children learn that real satisfaction comes not from lust, which is self-centered, avaricious and often thoughtless, but from Love, which cares for the other person, supports the other person, builds memories that last, and gives long-lasting joy.
Where do we find Love Education? In the flesh, we find it in Jesus Christ, and, for more detailed information, we have the New Testament, which is the Word of God.
At its Ukraine conference, the International Congress of the Family discussed everything from sexually transmitted diseases to family planning, to the dignity of life, to the basics of sustaining a good marriage, to the importance of Christian faith.
One of their biggest concerns, however, was the influence of the western media. I was able to address those concerns and teach them the first steps toward media wisdom. Many people asked for permission to translate my MEDIA-WISE FAMILY book and its into Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Polish, etc.
In the battle for the culture, we often focus on the conflict between the various secular worldviews such as materialism and socialism. In its visit to Ukraine, however, the Congress showed that the most important worldview in winning the culture wars and redeeming the values of the media is the Christian faith and its foundation on strong biblical principles. This faith and these principles can teach everyone how to live a better life, not only in Ukraine but throughout the whole world.
What a difference it would make if sex education courses were replaced by Christian Love Education courses! And, what a difference it would make if the mass media promoted Christian Love Education rather than lustful sex education!
Divorce rates would go down, AIDS rates would go down, and abandoned children would find loving homes. Best of all, the joy of giving would melt the Scrooge-like hearts of the opulent societies of the West, including the lust-minded executives in the mass media of entertainment.
Of course, with God, all things are possible.
(c) baehr, 2006
NOTE from Dr. Ted Baehr: For more information from a Christian perspective, order the latest MOVIEGUIDE® magazine by calling 1-800-899-6684(MOVI) or visit our website at www.movieguide.org. MOVIEGUIDE® is dedicated to redeeming the values of Hollywood by informing parents about today's movies and entertainment and by showing media executives and artists that family-friendly and even Christian-friendly movies do best at the box office year in and year out. MOVIEGUIDE® now offers an online subscription to its magazine version, at www.movieguide.org. The magazine, which comes out 25 times a year, contains many informative articles and reviews that help parents train their children to be media-wise consumers. MOVIEGUIDE® also regularly broadcasts several international TV and radio programs hosted by Dr. Baehr. Also, if you want to train your family to be media-wise, call 1-800-89 9-6684 in North America to order the book, video or audio version of THE MEDIA-WISE! FAMILY, Dr. Ted Baehr's latest book. © baehr, 2001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
