LifeSiteNews.com Life, Family and Culture News

August 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Same-sex styled romance and relationships are portrayed in the same manner virtually every time by media powers. The man or woman meets a member of the same sex and gushes out that he or she “just knew” that this was “the one”. “It was love at first sight”, they are sure to say, followed by lines about wanting to “get married” and “live happily ever after”. The camera usually zooms in on the enamored couple holding hands, looking at one another tenderly, or maybe even kissing one another.

I have no problem with people of the same sex deeply loving one another and being inclined to do so. How could I have a problem with that? Am I not a man who deeply loves his father, his brothers, and his dear male friends? I would like to think that I would lay down my life for them if needed.

I do have a problem, however, when people say that inclinations and feelings of love ought to translate to sexual expression.

The homosexual argument that one encounters again and again is that two people who love one another ought to be able to express their love and have society happily recognize their loving relationship. I call this the ‘homosexual mindset’. It has become a predominant mindset that has shown itself to tolerate no dissent.

The problem with this mindset is that one can go onto justify practically anything in the name of ‘loving feelings’.

A grown man who loves children, according to the homosexual mindset, ought to be able to have sexual relations with those children, simply because he is inclined to them and has loving feelings towards them. According to this mindset, anyone who says otherwise is a pedophiliaphobe and a bigot.

You think I go too far with my reasoning?

So-called psychology experts have claimed that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Homosexual-themed academic conferences have taken place that are aimed at reordering society so that the “stigma” associated with older men acting sexually toward younger children will be erased. People at these venues imbued with the homosexual mindset suggest that persons who are “emotionally and sexually attracted to children” ought to be called “minor-attracted persons” and have society bless their inclinations and the sexual acts that result from them.

If people can justify having sexual relations with minors because of their loving feelings toward children, then why not justify parents having sexual relations with their own children? With the homosexual mindset, a father should be able to have sexual relationships with his daughter because, after all, he loves her and even has intense feelings toward her. According to such a mindset, anyone who criticizes such people is an incestaphobe and a bigot.

You see, the lie that the promoters of the homosexual mindset perpetrate is that people are defined by their inclinations and that they must act on them in order to find fulfillment.

But the startling fact is that no one, absolutely no one, is defined by their inclinations. Is someone who is experiencing an inclination to kill others automatically a murderer? Is a man struggling with an inclination to rape automatically a rapist? Is someone who is inclined to overeat automatically a fattened glutton? Of course not. People become who they are by the acts they commit.

If this is true, then persons who experience inclinations to the same-sex are not automatically homosexual, but they are simply experiencing an inclination that they can choose to act or not to act upon.

Another fact is that every person alive today struggles daily with disordered tendencies, whether it be a struggle against greed, lust, selfishness, anger, or overeating. The fact is that everybody is looking to love somebody and to be loved by somebody. But it is not true, as the Beatles sing, that “all you need is love”. You also need love to be led by truth. For instance, such as the biological and moral truth that sexual relations are ordered towards the creation of a new life that is best nurtured and reared within a stable marital relationship.

The truth is that some relationships are moral and responsible, such as marriage, just as others are immoral and irresponsible, such as adultery. Society thus far has unanimously condemned relationships that involve grown men having sex with children, calling them disgusting and morally repugnant. Society, once upon a time not very long ago, also condemned homosexual relationships with the same kind of abhorrence. But society has been forced in the name of love and tolerance to accept the homosexual mindset. Shall the homosexual mindset also move us to accept pedophilia and incest?

(**** WARNING this story contains graphic information, viewer discretion is advised***)

August 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Russian punk rock band “Pussy Riot,” currently on trial for desecrating Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral, is being elevated by Western elites and media outlets to the status of a human rights icon.

Time magazine describes the trial as “A Kangaroo Court Goes on a Witch Hunt,” while Britain’s Guardian newspaper quotes supporters comparing group leader Nadezhda Tolokonnikova to Simone de Beauvoir. The Obama administration says it is “deeply concerned” about what it calls a “politically-motivated prosecution,” and the pro-abortion “human rights” group Amnesty International claims the trio are “prisoners of conscience.” Madonna Ciccone and other American pop stars and celebrities have characterized the girls as “heroes” and are demanding their release.

However, those same sources are giving a very truncated version of what the trio of girls actually did when they entered Russia’s most revered church, for what the band members claimed was merely a political protest against the administration of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The three women, all in their twenties, are being prosecuted for barging into the Cathedral’s most sacred space, the sanctuary that contains the altar, where they performed a high-kicking dance, sang an expletive-laden song, and engaged in mockery of worship. A video of their antics, with an English translation of the lyrics, can be found here (warning: offensive content).

Western media accounts typically quote only one phrase from the song sung by the trio, “St. Mary, virgin, drive away Putin,” giving the impression that the song was nothing more than an outcry against the Russian leader. However, an English translation of the full lyrics obtained by LifeSiteNews.com indicate that the girls had more than just electoral politics in mind.

In addition to their mockery of Orthodox worship, the girls derided the “Black robe, golden epaulettes,” of Orthodox clergy, and mocked the “crawling and bowing” of the parishioners. They then added a barb against the Orthodox Church’s defense of public morality, stating, “The ghost of freedom is in heaven, Gay pride sent to Siberia in chains.”

“The head of the KGB is their chief saint,” continue the girls, in reference to Putin’s former position under the Soviet regime.

They then sing a stanza associating the sacred with feces, followed by another stanza objecting to perceived support of the Putin administration by leaders of Orthodoxy, then another stating “Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin,” adding “B**ch, you better believe in God.”

“Pussy Riot” members’ little-known history of obscene “protests”

Another aspect of the story that has been left virtually unreported by Western media outlets is the association of “Pussy Riot” and its members with other obscene displays calculated to provoke moral offense and outrage.

In 2008, band members entered Moscow’s Museum of Biology in order to engage in a “fertility rite” protest against the election of Dmitry Medvedev as the country’s president.  “Pussy Riot” member Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and her husband removed their clothes and engaged in public sex in the museum, while others took photos of the incident and posted them on the Internet.

Maria Alekhina, another member, has released a video of the group in which she enters a supermarket and masturbates using a chicken leg, according to an uncharacteristically frank article by the Associated Press. In another recent stunt, the group hung a drawing of a huge phallus on a St. Petersburg drawbridge, the agency reports in the same article.

The group’s repeated acts of calculated provocation against Russian religious and moral sensibilities have created an impression of the band in their home country that differs dramatically from the sympathetic portrayal produced for Western consumers.

While America’s pop culture royalty and media establishment fawn over the jailed trio, Russian performers have been loath to associate themselves with their cause, including the nation’s two biggest rock stars, Zemfira and Mumiy Troll. Some, like the star singer Elena Vaenga, have even denounced them publicly, stating, “I’ll personally drink to the health of the judge who’ll slap them with some jail time.”

Even sympathetic Russian journalist Michael Idov admits in a recent article for the New York Times that “the hometown opinion on Pussy Riot is mixed at best. Even the liberal response has involved language like ‘They should let these chicks go with a slap on the ass.’”

Religious persecution from Russia’s liberals?

Alexander Shchipkov, chairman of the Club of Orthodox Christian Journalists, whom the Voice of Russia characterizes as “a prominent blogger who had to pay dearly for his religious beliefs back in the Soviet times,” regards the group’s cathedral “protest” as a “a cold, bloodless terrorist act.”

“The people who stand behind Pussy Riot want the church to adopt a secular system of values – moral relativism, ecumenism, political correctness and other rules of consumer society. The church will never agree to this kind of ‘secular Reformation,’” Shchipkov added, according to the Voice of Russia.

Dr. Igor Beloborodov, director of Russia’s Demographic Research Institute, told LifeSiteNews in an email interview that “Pussy Riot” has “repeatedly insulted the feelings of believers” in Russia, and is actively engaged in promoting an anti-family, anti-Christian agenda.

“Few people know that their aggressive actions have taken place under the slogans of the LGBT community,” wrote Beloborodov. “They have repeatedly stated in their comments that these actions are directed not only against the Orthodox Church and orthodox believers, but also in solidarity with sexual minorities, which in their opinion, are not supported by the Russian authorities.”

“They chose the church as a target for attack, as Orthodox priests are actively supporting the traditional family and the telling of truth about homosexuality,” he continued. “Obviously, in the spread of the ‘culture of death’ this group and all of their actions are a well-planned social project to discredit the church and the destruction of the natural family.”

“That is why today the anti-Christian lobby is expending huge resources in order to present this group as ‘martyrs.’ In fact we are dealing with dangerous anti-moral ‘terrorists’ fighting against society, churches and our children,” he added.

Updated: Aug. 9, 2012 at 3:57 pm.

COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Local pro-lifers are seeing red after they discovered a Red Cross blood drive was held outside an Ohio abortion clinic on Tuesday.

Ruth Yorston, Director of Columbus Right to Life, was taken aback when the American Red Cross rolled onto the grounds of the facility and began its one-day blood drive.

She said that when a Red Cross worker was told that abortions were performed at Complete Healthcare for Women, where the blood drive was set up on August 7, the worker was shocked. “I had no idea,” she responded.

Yorston believes that the Red Cross, like many locals, was indeed unaware of the clinic’s use, and hopes churches, faith-based organizations, and community centers will host the drives instead.

“Let’s step up so that the Red Cross doesn’t need to go to the abortion clinic,” she said.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

While the Red Cross has a reputation that is “hard fought and hard won,” said Yorston, “we encourage the Red Cross to consider who they are partnering with.”

“[Abortion is] contrary to what [they] are supposed to do, which is to protect life.”

The same day, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform held signs outside the center for three hours.  “It was more of an education thing,” says Sarah Cleveland, the Director of Outreach at the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and a medical professional.

She encouraged people to call the Red Cross to express concerns with their partnership, calling the situation ironic. “On the side of the truck it says, ‘Come Save a Life’ and they’re parked at a place that takes life.”

Many people in the community called the Red Cross to complain. “We’ve had a very good response from the community,” says Cleveland.

Rodney Wilson, Red Cross’s Communications Manager for Central Ohio, says that to the best of his knowledge “we weren’t aware of what types of services” the facility offered. 

He says, however, that the Red Cross typically does not ask questions about an organization’s principles and services. “We cannot restrict who receives our service or who participates as a volunteer…based upon their beliefs.”

Wilson stressed that remaining neutral and impartial has been a principle of the Red Cross since it began operations in the 1800s.  “We see ourselves as the go-between for a healthy person willing to give blood and a person in need of blood.”

He did acknowledge that the Red Cross “understands that abortion is something that people feel impassioned about.” He again reaffirmed that it is not the Red Cross’s place to take sides. 

August 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new movie due out for wide release this month is being advertised as a hard-hitting exposé of Barack Obama and his policy goals - and is already making waves in the countdown to November 2012.

2016, by famed conservative journalist Dinesh D’Souza together with Schindler’s List producer Gerald Molen, looks at both President Obama’s ideological roots from his childhood and youth, as well as his plan for America based on those underpinnings should he win a second term.

The new flick gave a hint of how it might resonate with audiences when it packed the single Texas theater that displayed a preview last month, grossing $32,000 in its opening weekend as moviegoers waited in lines for up to an hour and a half to meet the filmmakers, according to FOX News.

D’Souza told the Christian Post that moviegoers will learn just how much they didn’t know about the current president, and the extent of the radical anti-colonialist ideology D’Souza says is the real source of America’s staggering debt crisis. The film’s trailer pins Obama’s ideology on the legacy of his father, Barack Obama Sr., who resented the power wielded by America over the rest of the world: “Obama has a dream, a dream from his father: that the sins of colonialism be set right, and America be downsized.”

“Obama’s goal is to shrink America,” D’Souza told the Christian Post.  “He wants to reduce America’s footprint in the world because he thinks we are stepping on the world.”

The movie is based on D’Souza’s two books, The Roots of Obama’s Rage (2010) and Obama’s America, which is due out this month. The title, he said, was chosen “because we want audiences to question what the implications are, and what the world would look like in 2016 if he is re-elected.”

The movie probes Obama’s relationships with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Chicago domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, as well as other radical leaders in his past. “It is a real mystery how he managed to convince so many Americans to vote for him, and how some of his deepest beliefs have gone unscrutinized,” said D’Souza.

Although the election is not mentioned in the film except for in its final words, the journalist said the impact and timing of the film was inspired by none other than Farenheit 9/11 director Michael Moore.

“I feel embarrassed to say that because Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ is an intellectual disaster, but nevertheless that film was about a controversial president and it was received at a time when one half of the country was for the president and one half was against him and it was dropped in the middle of an election,” he said. “So that gave me the idea to make a film under similar conditions – controversial president, one half of the country is for him, one half is against him, and drop it in the middle of this year’s debate.

“But I wanted to make and have made a very different kind of a film that is not fast with the facts and is intellectually and factually very sound. So far, no one has alleged the contrary.”

The movie, which has already opened in a handful of theaters, is due for release on over 400 screens throughout August.

PORTLAND, OR, August 8, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – As the Obama administration’s HHS birth control mandate took effect at the beginning of this month, abortion providers and their supporters celebrated in the streets.

Michele Stranger Hunter, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon said the date the HHS mandate went into effect, “marks a change, a big huge change, for women all across the country and right here in Oregon.”

The abortion advocacy organization threw a 100-person celebration party on August 1, the date non-religious businesses were required to begin covering contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs with no co-pay in their insurance plans. 

Local media reported that Charlie Hales, a Democrat running for mayor of Portland, told the crowd his 25-year-old daughter, Caitlin, remains on his insurance because of Obama’s health reform law and is “happy to access preventive services without any cost sharing and also had access to a safe, legal abortion should she need one.”

Hales said, “I’m proud of Caitlin, and I’m proud that if she makes those choices, she gets to make them.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Across the country, in New York state, Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood (UHPP) CEO Patricia McGeown proclaimed she was “thrilled that health care reform will begin to make essential women’s health care services increasingly accessible and affordable for many women.”

The press release noted, “more consumers will start getting the benefit next year,” when the insurance providers of religious employers are forced to furnish such coverage. 

The press release describes this as “a compromise between those who have radically different ideas about how to approach these issues. But the compromise was reached and the nation must move forward.”

McGeown added that Planned Parenthood has a vested interest in the mandate. “Our centers and the nearly 800 Planned Parenthood health centers nationwide will be here for newly insured women who want quality health care from a provider they can trust,” she said. 

The HHS mandate, which is part of the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, went into effect August 1 for private businesses. 

Priests for Life, which is designated a non-religious organization, has announced it will not comply. 
 
Hercules Industries, a Catholic family HVAC business based in Denver, has successfully obtained a legal injunction against the mandate, pending further legal hearings. 

UHPP capped off its celebration by throwing McGeown a retirement party the next day, August 2.

MANILA, August 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Philippines’ Catholic bishops said the government’s recent move to end 14 years of contentious debate on the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill and force a vote, will have “tragic and catastrophic” consequences for Filipinos if the bill is passed.

The bill, House Bill 4244, mandates sex education in schools and subsidized contraceptives.

The Philippine House of Representatives passed a motion on Monday, at the request of President Benigno Aquino, to close debate on the controversial bill that has consistently been opposed by the country’s pro-life leaders, and proceed with deliberation on amendments to the bill.

“May God have mercy on our Congress,” said the former president of the Philippines’ bishops conference, Archbishop Angel N. Lagdameo of Jaro, one of many church leaders who condemned the measure.

Fr. Melvin Castro, head of the Catholic bishops’ Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, said President Aquino was “hard-hearted” in his refusal to further consider the concerns of opponents of the RH Bill, and criticized the dubious tactics used to advance the legislation.

“They break their own rules. They really forced it today,” Fr. Castro said on Monday. “It’s railroading. They’re destroying the very essence of democracy.”

In July President Aquino said that population control is the answer to the backlogs in education and the alleviation of poverty.

However, the head of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma said that the RH bill is not the key to resolving poverty in the country and that the country’s “positive” birth rate and population composed mostly of young people are the main players that fuel the economy.

“The population control policy of the RH bill would only stall our economic growth. The problem of countries with former robust economies is the lack of young workers for their industries and inadequate support for their aging population,” stated Archbishop Palma.

“It is therefore quite disturbing when the country is told that having too many children is a burden to the national budget,” the Cebu archbishop said, noting, “There is a grave reason to worry when the government would rather suppress the population through the RH Bill instead of confronting the real causes of poverty.”

In a letter condemning the RH Bill directed to Filipino youth, Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas of Lingayen Dagupan, pointed out that although bureaucratic corruption is “the cancer of the Philippines that prevents us from growing,” the ideology that promotes contraception is more harmful in that it is a form of corruption that “harms your soul,” and leads to abortion.

“We are battling against contraception because we know it can harm your soul. Believe me. Contraception harms your soul. Contraception is corruption,” Archbishop Villegas stated, adding, “Contraceptive pills teach us this ‘It is alright to have sex with someone provided you are safe from babies. Babies are a nuisance.’ A culture of contraception looks at babies as reasons for our poverty. Birth control, they say, means more food, more classrooms, more houses and better health for mothers. If more babies are the cause of poverty, are we now saying, ‘No more children means no more hardship?’”

The archbishop illustrated his point with the example of Europe’s demographic winter and the prophetic words of Paul VI who foretold that contraception would lead to rampant sexual promiscuity and end in unrestricted abortion.

“Europe is on the downtrend,” Archbishop Villegas said. “It is losing its soul because it now relies on the influx of migrants to keep it afloat. They are facing a severe wintertime in their child births. It is losing its identity because it does not have children and youth to carry the torch. They started with contraception, they embraced abortion and now they are killing their weak and sick grandparents.

“Paul VI prophesied that artificial contraception could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. And it is happening in Europe. We your elders plead with you do not follow that path to moral corruption. Dare to be different. Dare to be better!”

Archbishop Villegas concluded his plea to Filipino youth by reiterating that “Contraception is corruption. Contraception is the mother of abortion. Contraception makes sex pleasure cheap without responsibility. Contraception says babies and children are annoying. Contraception is contra youth. Contraception is contra children. Contraception is against us.” He noted incisively, “There is no Tagalog or Pangasinan word for contraception because it is not only ungodly, it is also unFilipino.”

A film titled “The Philippines: Preserving a Culture of Life” produced by Human Life International (HLI) documents the assault on the pro-life values of the Philippines by Western pro-abortion advocates of the anti-life Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. Watch the film here.

Updated 08/08/12 to correct the attribution of quotes at the end of the article.

NEW YORK, August 7, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archdiocese of New York spokesman Joseph Zwilling has confirmed to LifeSiteNews that Cardinal Timothy Dolan did in fact extend the invitation to President Obama to speak at the Al Smith Dinner fundraiser in October. This had been previously also confirmed to LifeSiteNews by Meghan Myers, the Executive Director of the annual event. Obama will join Mitt Romney in keynoting the annual fundraiser for Catholic charities.

When LifeSiteNews broke the story on Obama’s acceptance of the invite last week, Zwilling said at the time that he had not heard of the invitation. Today, Zwilling confirmed that Cardinal Dolan “made the invitation as the Chairman of the Board of the Smith Foundation.”  Asked if Cardinal Dolan was aware of the invitation prior to its being sent, Zwilling said, “the Cardinal was aware, I said I was not aware.”

Pro-life leaders have expressed surprise at the invitation, coming as it does at the same time as the U.S. bishops are locked in a fierce battle with the Obama administration over its birth control mandate. Many are asking Cardinal Dolan, who has a reputation as a strongly pro-life bishop, and who has taken a visible leadership role in the fight against the HHS mandate, to rescind the invitation.

Obama is viewed by many pro-life advocates as the most extreme pro-abortion president in history. He also recently came out in support of same-sex “marriage,” and has opposed the Defense of Marriage Act.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

Priests for Life President Father Frank Pavone commented on the invite, saying he did not think it was appropriate at this time.

“I’m all in favor of protocol and understand the difference between respecting the President’s policies vs. respecting his office. But there comes a time when the polite putting aside of differences for a while amounts to scandal,” said Pavone in a statement emailed to LifeSiteNews.com Monday morning.

Similarly, American Life League President Judie Brown wrote a column in which she extolled Cardinal Dolan’s leadership on the fight against the HHS mandate, and yet asked him to rescind the invitation to Obama. She invited pro-lifers to join in “respectfully and prayerfully” communicating their concerns to the Cardinal.

Critics of the Obama invite have pointed out that there is precedent for cancelling the traditional appearance of the presidential candidates, with strongly pro-abortion Bill Clinton and John Kerry, as well as their rivals, failing to receive invitations in 1996 and 2004.

“In 1996 and 2004 the Smith Foundation for whatever reason decided not to invite those particular candidates and to invite others to the dinner,” Zwilling said when the prior cancellations were pointed out to him.  “That was not the decision of the board this year.”

LifeSiteNews reported yesterday that Archdiocesan official Ed Mechmann has defended the invitation of Obama in a blog post featured on the front page of the archdiocese website. Mechmann argues that the Al Smith dinner is a non-partisan dinner, and that Obama’s appearance alongside Romney does not amount to an endorsement of his views.

Zwilling gave much the same rationale for the Obama invite. “The invitation is extended by the Smith foundation as part of the tradition of the dinner to have the two Presidential nominees invited every four years,” Zwilling told LifeSiteNews. “Cardinal Dolan and the Smith Foundation extended the invitation this year to the two of them. It is non-partisan, it puts aside differences for a good cause to support women and their babies. It brings together people from both sides of the isle for an evening of good humor and good fellowship and civil discourse – something we need more of.”

PARIS, August 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com)  – The new Socialist president and assembly of France passed an amendment to the equalities law late last month adding language to include “sexual identity” as a grounds for legally prohibited “discrimination.” Before the unanimous vote, one Socialist senator said that the change came in response to lobbying from “transgender” people.

Michelle Miller said, “Transgender people have alerted us to high frequency of harassment and assaults they experience, particularly during the transition period that can last several years. It seems necessary to me to complete the law on discrimination and to add recognition of transphobia.”

Some homosexualist activists expressed disappointment, however, that the language “sexual identity” was used and not the “gender identity,” which is regarded as “more accurate” and is in use in other EU countries. “Sexual orientation” is already included in the law.

A press release from the French Transgender National Association said the term “sexual identity” is not defined in law and therefore the determination of whether an offense has been committed will be left up to individual judges. A Communist Party Senator, Annie David, raised the point, saying, “The debate needs to be opened. ‘Gender identity’ is not sexual identity: one can be born into male or female without a corresponding gender identity.”

The government of Francois Hollande promised in July to bring in “gay marriage” within months.

EDINBURGH, August 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Scottish Presbyterian denomination, the Free Church of Scotland, told media this week that “tens of thousands” of Scottish people responded to a public consultation with a “definitive no” to the government’s plans to install “gay marriage.” But by pushing forward with the gay ‘marriage’ plans anyway, the government is rendering “the whole exercise completely meaningless,” said the denomination.

The government, they said, is “riding roughshod” over the “clear opposition” expressed by the overwhelming majority.

A spokesman for the church said, “The Scottish Government’s decision to press ahead with these plans is astounding given the huge number of Scots who have said that they do not want marriage to be redefined.”

“Not only are the Scottish Government redefining marriage, but obviously redefining what consultation means as well.”

The Scottish government pledged to bring in “gay marriage” in July, intending to allow it in both religious and civil settings. Two-thirds of the 77,000 responses in the public consultation were opposed to the plan, the Christian Institute reports.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Meanwhile, a Queen’s Council lawyer has advised the government that the legal ramifications of passing “gay marriage” will be wide-ranging, warning that anyone in any public position, not just religious ministers and marriage celebrants, with strong moral opposition to homosexuality will be forced to approve and promote it.

Aidan O’Neill, QC, presented a list of circumstances where gay ‘marriage’ will likely encroach on the rights of Scottish citizens. He warned, for instance, that teachers who refuse to use “gay friendly” materials in class could be dismissed, and that religious schools will be prohibited from teaching about natural marriage. He also said a hospital chaplain who preached about traditional marriage could be disciplined even if he were off duty at the time and that foster parents could be struck off local council fostering lists for expressing opposition to same-sex “marriage.” As well, church groups from denominations opposed to “gay marriage” could be refused the use of public facilities, he said.

At the same time, Western Isles MSP Alasdair Allan has said that he is “unlikely” to support the government in a vote, saying that the great majority of his constituents are not reassured by the promises of “safeguards” for religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Allan, who serves as Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages, said, “[P]eople have made very clear that they are not reassured by safeguards around areas to do with existing rights of churches not to participate. I have to reflect the views of people in the constituency. I will study the bill but I think I am unlikely to support it in the chamber.”

“The level of responses certainly indicates the depth of feeling on both sides of the argument. I am trying to give it a great deal of thought, I can’t please everyone but I think in this one the constituency has made the view clear,” he added.

Despite these concerns and widespread public opposition, the government is forging ahead. A spokesman responded saying, “We are entirely confident of protecting freedom of speech and freedom of religion within our same-sex marriage proposals.

“We have stated that in taking forward this legislation we will discuss the range of concerns with stakeholders and what additional protections should be included.”

This week it was revealed that Scottish ministers intend to forestall the process until the UK Equalities Act can be amended to protect the freedoms of those opposed to gay ‘marriage’. But despite similar assurances from the Blair Labour government, the Act was used as the pretext to force the closure or secularization of all the country’s Catholic adoption agencies and has been the basis for several legal actions against Bed &Breakfast owners who have refused to allow same-sex partners share a bed in their home.

Scotland’s deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said, “The Scottish government has already made clear that no religious body will be compelled to conduct same sex marriages and we reiterate that today. Such protection is provided for under existing equality laws.

“However, our view is that to give certainty on protection for individual celebrants taking a different view from a religious body that does agree to conduct same sex marriages, an amendment will be required to the UK Equality Act.”

The government has since announced another public consultation to consider the implications for freedom of speech, protection of religious beliefs of teachers and parents of children in public schools.

A Scotland for Marriage spokesman said that the plans will necessarily “penalise and punish those who disagree with redefining marriage”.

“They have ignored their own public consultation, and announced that they will proceed with legislation even though – by their own admission – the civil liberty concerns still hang in the balance,” he said.

“It has become abundantly clear to the country the proposals from the outset have been ill-conceived and poorly thought out with no consideration for the views of the vast majority in the country, including people of faith.

“Now they are planning yet another consultation. Will they simply consult and consult until they get the answer they want? As they do so, their continued posturing puts the civil rights of religious people at risk.”

This survey was published in the July/August edition of the Interim newspaper and is re-published with permission.

Interim Editor’s Note: We asked more than 15 pro-life groups, organizations, and leaders to answer two questions:

Do you support gestational limits* on abortion. Would you like to state why? (* for the purpose of this survey, gestational limits means restricting abortion after a certain point, whether by trimester or some other time period.)

What kinds of incremental measures do you support. If yes, can you give an example? If no, why?

We originally also asked whether they supported We Need a Law but later dropped the question because it unfairly singled out one organization. We regret doing so. The responses are listed below; a number of groups did not respond.

Georges Buscemi, Campaigne Quebec Vie

Incremental: Yes

Gestational: No

It’s a foundational policy of Campaign Life Coalition, of which Campagne Quebec Vie is the Quebec representative, that the gestational approach is a compromise form of legislation, and therefore unacceptable.

Campagne Québec-Vie, will, all things being equal, promote any legislation that is not deemed compromise legislation. As long as the wording of legislation does not express the view that some humans are less human than others, any type of incremental legislation could be acceptable.

Rosemary Connell, Show the Truth

I appreciate being asked to answer the survey but don’t feel I have the expertise to respond.

Mary Ellen Douglas, Campaign Life Coalition

Incremental: Yes

Gestational: No

Campaign Life Coalition does not support gestation limits on abortion. Life begins at the time of conception and all human life must be protected from this time until natural death.

In 1969, Canada’s law was changed to allow abortion if three members of a ‘therapeutic abortion committee’ in a hospital approve the killing. The pro-life movement fought against that unjust law for 19 years. In 1988, the Supreme Court struck down the entire abortion law and since then Canada has had no abortion law.

To implement a law which would purport to save babies after 12 weeks, 16 weeks, 20 weeks, etc., would establish an abortion law which would approve the killing of babies up to the chosen time. Pro-lifers who advocate such legislation would be complicit in the creation of a pro-abortion law. CLC will never accept that.

European pro-life leaders which have gestational limits have told us repeatedly that gestational laws do nothing to prevent abortion but only assuage the public conscience.

Campaign Life Coalition will only support a law to protect all human life from the time of conception onward. However, we do support incremental legislation while we actively work for complete protection.

Since 1969, 42 pieces of pro-life federal legislation has been proposed in Parliament. Many called for amendments to the criminal code for full protection of the unborn child or the definition of human being; others were incremental measures such as defunding, women’s right to know, medically necessary abortions, conscience legislation and the unborn victims of violence.

Campaign Life Coalition has been involved in drafting legislation for the MPs, promoting and supporting these incremental pieces of legislation.

Alissa Golob, Campaign Life Coalition Youth

Incremental: Yes

Gestational: No

We don’t support gestational limits on abortion. It is not strategic to attempt to institute just any law, just for the sake of saying we have one. Anything is not always better than nothing, especially if it achieves nothing. In the United Kingdom, for example, even after a gestational law was put in place restricting abortions after 24 weeks, abortion rates still continued to increase. As Dr. Janet Smith says, “gestational law turns its back on the inalienable and inviolable right to life of every human being. It substitutes pragmatism for principle.”

I support incremental approaches such as parental notification, complete informed consent, defunding and ultrasound laws; basically any law that would make it extremely difficult for women to obtain abortions. These measures have been proven to actually decrease the number and frequency of abortions, without resorting to gestational limits. The claim that those who oppose a gestational approach are “all or nothing” is therefore false.

Stephanie Gray, Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reform

Incremental: Yes

Gestational: Yes

We support any incremental measures that are effective in saving lives and which act to limit, not introduce, the evil of abortion.  Evangelium Vitae provides a helpful guideline by stating, “when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

Because Canada has an absence of any law on abortion, and because in such a situation that means any abortion is permitted, and because our criminal code does not consider the pre-born human beings until they have “completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of [their] mother[s],” we support gestational limits on abortion.  Our ultimate goal is that all abortions be banned, but we recognize that achieving that larger goal means meeting smaller goals in the meantime.  Every year in Canada, 100,000 children are killed.  We believe all 100,000 need to be saved, but if we cannot save 100,000 right away, we believe that saving 10,000 (or whatever number we can in the meantime) is better than 0.  Because no abortions are currently banned, introducing a gestational ban on abortion acts to limit, rather than introduce, the evil.

Jim Hnatiuk, Christian Heritage Party

Incremental: Did not answer

Gestational: No

We support the protection of innocent human life from conception. A gestational approach is one born of desperation and exhibits compromise on the most important issue of life. We already have a law based on the stage of development. It’s called full-term pregnancy. So a gestational law just moves the time-frame back towards conception. No, we do not support gestational limit legislation.

Don Hutchinson, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

Incremental: Yes

Gestational: Yes

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) has consistently affirmed the inestimable worth of human life from conception, as a special act of God’s creation. Recognizing that in Canada human life in the womb has been legally being terminated without limits after the point of conception until the moment of birth since 1988, the EFC has supported legislative and other legal initiatives that oppose the destruction of human life in the womb. The EFC remains prepared to engage the debate about appropriate initiatives that will protect lives in the womb, even though such initiatives might not protect all lives that we believe are deserving of protection.

Jakki Jeffs, Alliance for Life Ontario and Guelph and Area Right to Life

Incremental: Yes

Gestational: No

I do not support gestational limits on abortion. I believe in three simple truths: God is the author of all human life, all children in the womb are human beings/persons and every human being/person has the right to life.

The ultimate goal of the pro-life movement is to change hearts and minds on abortion. If we can restore respect for the value of human life then laws protecting all human beings will naturally follow.

I will never support legislation based on subjective situations such as “viability” or “gestational age.” We would be telling the public and our politicians that we believe, human life is inviolable only if you have attained a certain age or are able to affect a certain function.

What we ask for legislatively must be consistent to our verbal message – we cannot allow the politicians to believe that we no longer require them to legislate protection for every human life.

I support all legislative efforts which do not violate our pro-life principle. As president of Guelph and Area Right to Life I can categorically state that our board has discussed gestational legislation and unanimously rejected it as a supportable measure.

I absolutely believe that it is the job of government to protect each and every human life, inside or outside the womb.

I will only support incremental legislation which does not violate our pro-life principle, that every human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation from his/her creation.

We do not have to forego our pro-life principle to gain some political victory (defunding, informed consent, conscience protection for health care workers) but our mission is to change hearts and minds on abortion. While both pro-life groups I volunteer and work with are non-denominational I personally believe that I am my brothers’ keeper, not keeper of some of my brothers and I also believe that we are commanded that “Thou shalt not kill.” Recently we have witnessed our opponents willingness to sacrifice the women of tomorrow to safeguard abortion for the women of today. They will not move from their support of abortion choice at all costs.

We can do no less than they but without the blood of the innocents on our hands. It is imperative that we stand our ground.

Sarah Johnson, 4MY Canada

Incremental: Yes

Gestational: Yes

Laws such as informed consent, mandatory ultrasounds, anti-coercion laws, freedom of conscience laws, legislated “cool down” periods or any law that applies to all trimesters would be our first choice, however, we support any restriction to abortion that saves lives.

Fr. John Lemire, Priests for Life Canada

Incremental: Yes

Gestational: Yes

Priests for Life Canada supports progressively, restrictive, and realistically attainable political goals as laid out by Blessed John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (paragraph 73) to save preborn children in a hostile parliamentary environment. As Blessed John Paul II clearly states: “A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Therefore, Priests for Life Canada believes it is necessary to recognize that such activity and goals are morally sound, theologically approved and pragmatically achievable.

Priests for Life Canada supports efforts to restrict funding for abortion and destructive embryonic stem cell research, extension of abortion to clinics, forced abortion procedure and assistance, training for interns and nurses, efforts for informed consent, professionals conscience rights, mandatory cooling off periods before abortions, recognition of the legal personhood of the preborn, restrictive efforts, and many other prolife initiatives. These are all to be lauded and at least tacitly encouraged. Priests for Life Canada believes we should never engage in falsely destructive splitting of our ranks in seeking to achieve our goals to build and support a culture of life.

Mark Penninga, Association for Reformed Political Action

Incremental: Yes

Gestational: Yes

ARPA Canada would support a wide variety of laws that aim to restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible. These laws must explicitly or implicitly affirm that all human life has inherent dignity. Examples include laws requiring informed consent, counseling, a time-delay, and parental notification, laws against coercion, legally recognizing unborn victims of crime, bans on specific abortion procedures, a law against sex-selective abortion, and late-term abortion bans. Of course we would be most excited to see this country desire complete protection for the unborn.

ARPA Canada is convicted that gestational restrictions on abortion can be a prudent and principled means to restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible. Doing politics means working with what is possible. The Bible consistently affirms that while the civil government must protect life, it also has a limited role in society because it is not the ultimate answer. This applies to abortion as it does to all examples of human brokenness and evil. Canada is a secular nation that does not respect God’s standards about the value of human life. But that does not mean that it supports the status quo of having absolutely no legal protection for the unborn. As it stands, Canadian law is out of sync with where Canadians stand on abortion (with a majority in favour of abortion restrictions). Our civil government has the duty to do what it can to restrict abortion. The pro-life movement can support and assist our government officials as they take steps to do this. Doing what is possible, while continually affirming the dignity of all human life, is not compromise. The Lord willing, Canada’s pro-life movement can see some of the legislative successes that the rest of the world has taken to protect preborn human life. And if we are blessed with restrictions, we must press on and keep working for more. ARPA Canada looks forward to working alongside the rest of the pro-life movement as we each do what we can to protect the unborn.

August 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Let’s start with what actually constitutes hate. Westboro Baptist Church is not at all coy about the word “hate,” so much so, in fact, that they even decorate their signs and websites with the word. On the opposite side, though, actress Rosanne Barr tweeted last week, “anyone who eats S***-Fil-A deserves to get the cancer…”

The vast majority of people who oppose same-sex marriage (SSM) are anything but hateful. In fact, when people accuse SSM opponents of being hateful, they usually employ two logical fallacies: an ad-hominem attack against the person instead of the argument, and a straw-man fallacy, misrepresenting the position as one that stems from emotional bias rather than reasoned arguments.

But there are reasoned, legal arguments against SSM. In order to understand them, one must understand the state’s interest in institutionalized marriage, which is the creation and maintenance of the most stable known family unit. While I could reasonably meet the basic needs of my daughter by myself, the best situation she could ever grow up in is one that includes both her mother and me. After all, there are more differences between men and women than physiology, and I could never succeed in teaching my daughter to become a woman without the aid of a woman.

SSM advocates argue the above institution is unequal. Even a broad look at the legal underpinnings of marriage, though, shows an absence of discrimination. The reason for this is simple. Marriage, institutionalized by the government, is regulated, as are all governmental institutions, but marriage lacks the discriminatory status that so many ascribe to it because it regulates all people equally.

In the U.S., any person is free to marry as long as he or she is not currently married, is of age, and marries somebody of the opposite sex who is separated by a defined degree of relation. Nowhere is there a requirement that a party must be attracted to members of the opposite sex. That would be discriminatory. The SSM advocate will point out that most heterosexuals who marry are romantically attracted to each other, which is true, but the law is indifferent to the presence or absence of romantic attraction.

So it’s inaccurate for SSM advocates to say they want equality; what they want is a redefinition of marriage to remove the restriction that people marry the opposite sex.

And this desire is a downright dangerous legal conundrum.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

If asked why they believe SSM should be actualized in the U.S. or is correct in having been actualized in Canada, many advocates will respond along the thread that all people should be allowed to marry whomever they “love.” They say love is love, and this is what’s legally troubling about SSM. “Love” is an equivocation. I love pizza much differently than I love my wife.

But in order to create a legal institution, definitions must be established, whether explicitly or implicitly. Inherent to SSM is the inclusion of romantic attraction in the definition of “love.”

And this is where the problem lies. Romantic attraction is fickle, and any institution that is based on something as ever-changing as romantic attraction is doomed to instability.

But this is hardly the worst part. When people bring up the issues of polygamy, bestiality, and a host of other sexually deviant behaviors, SSM advocates are quick to say they are falling into a slippery slope fallacy by assuming SSM will necessarily lead to legal acceptance of these behaviors; but SSM advocates invariably fall into said fallacy by assuming that SSM will not lead to legal acceptance of these behaviors without providing evidence to the contrary.

In conversation, I have asked people dozens of times how a government could justify denying siblings the right to marry if we simply say anybody who “loves” somebody else can marry him or her. I have never received an actual attempt at a response. That’s because basing marriage on romantic attraction opens this door. It is the case that some siblings are romantically attracted to one another. It is also the case that there are numerous situations where groups of more than two people are romantically attracted to each other. The redefining of marriage on romantic attraction reduces other restraints on marriage to arbitrary tradition, tradition that will likely fade in the future with further acceptance of SSM.

So no, my opposition to gay marriage doesn’t stem from religion. I certainly don’t “hate” members of the gay community, and my opposition doesn’t even stem from the fact that people who engage in homosexual activities are at a disproportionately high risk of developing diseases and decreasing their life spans. No. My opposition to SSM stems from the fact that I think it’s a poor idea to replace a long-standing civil institution with a legal institution that is implicitly based on emotions.

Josh Divine is a U.S. citizen who holds a degree in Mathematics. He is currently pursuing a Juris Doctor.

Co-authored with Elizabeth Crnkovich

August 8, 2012 (Pop.org) - Iran’s fertility rate has crashed over the past few decades of Islamicist rule. So much so that the mullahs who run the country are now calling for more babies to be born.

How did things come to such a pass?

After all, the Koran, like the Torah and the Bible, strongly endorses the idea that babies are blessings and encourages strong families. Most mullahs originally opposed not just abortion, but sterilization and contraception as well. And there was a brief flourishing of fertility following the Islamic Revolution, in which the early eighties saw women averaging over six children.

So what happened?

The mullahs, who had nothing but disdain for the free market and foreign trade, led the country into a recession soon after taking power. Western investors took flight. As the economy went into a downward spiral, they, along with the Iranian people, began to rethink their commitment to the family.

The population controllers, who were waiting in the wings, scented an opportunity.

The population control movement has long sought out and cultivated liberal Muslim clerics, encouraging them to rethink Islam’s traditional encouragement of childbearing. They know that Islam lacks a central religious authority, and that any imam can issue a fatwa — an Islamic religious opinion.

This strategy was successfully implemented in Egypt in the 1970s with a series of projects on “Population in the Context of Islam.” By the late 1980s, Egypt had accepted and affirmed family planning. The Egyptian birthrate soon plummeted.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

Similar efforts in Iran in the early 1980s, combined with the deepening recession, induced the Iranian government to make a similar about-face. Departing from the traditional Islamic understanding of children as a blessing, the government began a foreign-inspired and supported campaign against the large family.

The principal architect of Iran’s population control program was Hossein Malek-Afzali, a physician who was, like most population controllers, trained in the United States, in his case at the University of California at Los Angeles.

First of all, the ayatollahs themselves began speaking out in favor of contraception and sterilization at their televised religious services. Many a village mullah followed suit, devoting part of his Friday sermon to encouraging his followers to visit the local birth control center.

The government — controlled by the ayatollahs, of course — followed suit. Television programs were produced and broadcast that openly promoted family planning. A network of volunteers was set up to go house to house and urge women to limit their childbearing. At the same time, the government began offering free contraceptive services — including pills, condoms, IUDs and the contraceptive patch — and free sterilization.

This national campaign, in conjunction with Iran’s continuing economic turmoil, quickly made inroads into the fertility of the population. The fertility rate shrank dramatically, until by 2010 it stood at 1.6 children and falling.

The United Nations now projects that Iran’s population will peak in a little more than 10 years, and then begin to shrink. This is the U.N’s low variant projection, historically the most accurate. The medium variant gives Iran 20 years before the population begins imploding. In the long run, it makes little difference.

The ayatollahs, seeing the handwriting on the wall, have now changed their minds again. Confronted with the reality of an aging and dying population with no replacements in sight, they have begun encouraging more children. They have embarked upon a program of government aid, such as creating and funding a bank account for each child born. They have abolished their counterproductive birth control program.

Would that they had left well enough alone.

Reprinted with permission from pop.org.

August 8, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - As August 1, 2012, women everywhere residing in the United States can receive free birth control as part of the health care they receive from their insurance companies. After the creation of the HHS mandate earlier this year, birth control has frequently become an issue of discussion in the American political sphere. With the implementation of free birth control under the Affordable Care Act, our leaders have been sending a firm message to the American people that birth control is considered health care.

Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation, stated in a video encouraging women to demand that the government pay for their birth control:

Birth control is basic health care, and should be covered like any other health care.

But they’re all wrong. Birth control is not health care any more than my organic oatmeal or your gym membership is. Let me explain.

According to Merriam-Webster, health care is defined as “the prevention or treatment of illness by doctors, dentists, psychologists, etc.” (Emphasis mine.) The logic is actually quite simple. Being pregnant is not an “illness.” It may be a condition some women find undesirable, but it is a perfectly natural state for the female body to be in. In fact, the condition of pregnancy – depicting fertility – has historically been a mark of the most desirable women. Needless to say, the state of pregnancy is absolutely necessary for the continuation of the human race and can hardly be considered an illness that needs to be cured.

Those little birth control pills do resemble the pills you might be prescribed for a sinus infection. But their function contains a crucial difference. They are not treating – or preventing – an illness.

“Oh!” the feminists say, “but birth control promotes the well-being of women!” Well, if anything that promotes the well-being of women can be considered health care, how about a monthly trip to the spa? I’m quite sure that the facials and deep-tissue massages will enhance my health. If promoting an individual’s health is the only requirement for an item to be considered health care, there are a plethora of other indulgences that could be added to the list.

But what about the poor woman who simply can’t afford birth control? Let’s address the issue of cost. Politicians make birth control sound like precious pills of gold, unaffordable to the majority of American women. In reality, an uninsured woman can purchase a month’s supply of birth control at Target for the exorbitant amount of…$9. To put it bluntly, if a woman cannot afford $9 each month for basic birth control, she has bigger problems than staying un-pregnant.

One important clarification should be made: there are women who are prescribed birth control to treat a medical issue, such as Endometriosis. These women are taking birth control for the treatment of an illness, and therefore in these situations birth control can and should be considered health care. While some might argue that this exception creates a blurry line, the distinction is really quite simple: whether or not the birth control is being used to treat a medical issue. Birth control that is being taken solely to prevent a pregnancy is not preventing any sort of physical illness, and should not be considered health care.

Of course, the most significant problem with considering birth control health care is not the illogicality, but rather the blatant violation of thousands of Americans’ religious consciences. If an individual is morally opposed to birth control, that person should not be forced to pay for insurance that includes said birth control. After all, we live in a country that proudly claims to protect its citizens’ freedom of religion. But when the government redefines health care and forces citizens to act against their personal convictions, our country hardly feels like the home of the free.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org