Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Neo-Nazi Greens: "There would be Strict Environmental Protection and Animal Rights Laws"

The Neo-Nazi Greens are not only racist, but anti-Catholic with the state "mandat[ing] a two-child family to keep the population at replacement level to preserve the environment."

Fred

http://www.aryan-nations.com/

This concept is based on a 1947 book called Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics by Francis Parker Yockey.[23] It is envisioned that after the "Western Imperium" is established, all Jews and non-white illegal immigrants would be expelled from its territory. Only those of the "Aryan race" would be full citizens of the State. Miscegenation would be outlawed. The State would mandate a two-child family to keep the population at replacement level to preserve the environment. Television would be used extensively for propaganda. There would be an aggressive program of space exploration. There would be strict environmental protection and animal rights laws (see Ecofascism). It is usually envisioned that the flag of the "Western Imperium" would be like the red Nazi flag, except within the white disc would be a black-colored nationalistic stylized Celtic cross rather than a black swastika. Some Neo-Nazi groups, however, such as the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party envisage using a green instead of a red flag for the "Western Imperium" to express Neo-Nazi concern about preserving the environment
[http://www.aryan-nations.com/ ]

Will Catholicism be a Hate Crime in USA if Obama is Elected?

Gay/Socialist Canada is Obama's model of change for the USA.

Fred

Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?
June 4th, 2008 by Pete Vere

“If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?”

The question was not rhetorical. Nor was it theoretical. Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist known throughout Canada for his orthodoxy, is currently being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) — a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it. The CHRC is using section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act to investigate the priest. This is a section under which no defendant has ever won once the allegation has gone to tribunal — the next stage of the process.

Most defendants end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and compensation. This is in addition to various court costs. Moreover, defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast, the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant.

What was Father de Valk’s alleged ‘hate act’?

Father defended the Church’s teaching on marriage during Canada’s same-sex ‘marriage’ debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages - many of who are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman.

The response from Mark van Dusen, a media consultant and spokesperson for CHRC, shocked me. I have interviewed van Dusen in the past and he has always struck me as an honest person willing to field tough questions on behalf of the commission. If he feels an accusation against the commission is hogwash, he states so plainly. If he feels the CHRC and its personnel are being unfairly tainted, he states so boldly.

Yet van Dusen did not dismiss the question out-of-hand as I thought he would. “We investigate complaints, Mr. Vere,” he said, “we don’t set public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And …if…upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in the Human Rights Act under section 13-1.”

In other words, individual Jews, Muslims, Catholics and other Christians who, for reasons of conscience, hold to their faith’s traditional teaching concerning marriage, could very well be guilty of promoting hate in Canada. The same is true of any faith community in Canada that does not embrace this modern redefinition of one of the world’s oldest institutions — a redefinition that even the highly-secularist France rejects.

“Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act, to accumulated case law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on hate and decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there is room for a settlement between parties,” van Dusen continued. The truth of the CHRC considering adherence to Catholicism or Islam a possible hate crime was made real by van Dusen’s implicit admission that the commission could dismiss the complaint against Fr. De Valk. Over six months have passed since the commission first notified Father of the complaint. There has been no hint of the commission dropping the complaint.

Father de Valk publishes Catholic Insight, a Canadian magazine that “bases itself on the Church’s teaching and applies it to various circumstances in our time.” He is being accused by a homosexual activist of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals.

Yet following the example of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XV, Father has stated on several occasions that we must love homosexuals and treat them with the dignity due every human person. “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” Father told me during an interview. “Opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons.” This is the deeply-held belief of orthodox Christians that is now considered a possible hate act warranting state intervention. This is what happens when government agencies broadly define homophobia as opposition to any homosexual act.

Yet the complaint against Father de Valk is just one of several in recent years that has been pursued against Christians by Canada’s human rights commissions. In 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined a Knights of Columbus council over $1,000 dollars for declining to rent their hall to a couple for a lesbian marriage ceremony.

Five years previous, the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined Protestant printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for declining to print homosexual-themed stationary. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined Hugh Owens thousands of dollars for quoting a couple of Bible verses in a letter to the local newspaper. And Mayor Diane Haskett in London, Ontario, was fined $10,000 plus interest for declining to proclaim a gay pride day.

Nor have Canada’s bishops been spared. Bishop Fred Henry, one of Canada’s most outspoken defenders of the sanctity of life and marriage, was brought before a human rights commission for upholding Catholic moral teaching. While the complaint was ultimately withdrawn — not by the commission, but by the individual who originally filed the complaint — Bishop Henry incurred thousands of dollars of legal costs.

Thus Bishop Henry sympathizes with Father de Valk, who the bishop praises as a model of Catholic orthodoxy and fidelity to Christian teaching. “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police,” His Excellency states.

Additionally, a message posted to a popular Catholic internet forum has reportedly made its way before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The alleged poster, who is an American writing from America, was commenting on an article written by Mark Steyn — a Canadian author who now lives in New Hampshire. The tribunal accepted this posting as evidence that Steyn promoted “hatred”. While the website is never mentioned by name in news reports - referred to only as “a Catholic website” — a source at the tribunal told me, off-the-record, that the website was Catholic Answers.

While the claim is unconfirmed as of this writing, the controversial Mark Steyn article, over which the British Columbia hearing is being held, was posted to the Catholic Answers message forum. Moreoever, popular Jewish-Canadian blogger Ezra Levant, who is blogging live from the hearing, and who is the subject of his own human rights commission complaint, published a description of the unnamed Catholic forum. Several details match, including the screen names of two participants to the Catholic Answers forum discussion of Steyn’s article.

Imagine that! Canada’s human rights tribunals are now attempting to prosecute a case against an American resident, based upon what an American citizen allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion in America is now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada.

Moreover, Christians in America are not immune from what is happening to their co-religionists across the border. This past April, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered Elaine Huguenin, a self-employed Christian photographer, to pay a lesbian couple $6,600 for having declined to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony. This fine and stress from the legal proceedings come at a time when Huguenin and her husband are expecting their first child.

The New Mexico commission ignored the fact that photography is a form of artistic expression. The state commission ignored the fact that the First Amendment protects individuals from compelled speech — that is, coercion from the state to give artistic expression that violates one’s most deeply held beliefs. The commission’s one-page ruling simply stated that Huguenin had “discriminated against [the lesbian complainant] because of sexual orientation.” As this New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruling shows, Americans are in grave danger of having their religious liberty ripped away from them by Canadian-style human rights commissions.

Pete Vere, JCL, is a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist. He writes from Sault Ste. Marie, a twin city in Northern Ontario and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. He is the co-author of Surprised by Canon Law, volumes one and two.

[http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/]

Rights complaints against Catholic Insight dismissed

Written by Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News,

OTTAWA - The Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed an anti-homosexual hate speech complaint against Catholic Insight magazine.

“We are of course very cautious,” said Catholic Insight editor Fr. Alphonse de Valk, CSB, whose small-circulation magazine already faces more than $20,000 in legal bills. “A judicial review is still possible. We’re not out of the woods yet.

“It is chilling to think that a publication can be hauled before a government tribunal simply for reporting to interested citizens developments in these areas of controversy,” said de Valk in a July 4 statement. “This matter underscores once again the necessity of urgent reform of the Canadian human rights system.”

Edmonton-based homosexual activist Rob Wells filed the nine-point complaint against Catholic Insight in early 2007. Catholic Insight is going to see whether it can take legal action to recoup its costs because of “harassing and financially burdening” nature of the complaints. Catholic Insight has maintained it has always adhered to Catholic teaching on human sexuality.

Hitler and the Top Animal Rights Leader

Hitler and the top animal rights leader Peter Singer would use humans rather than animals for research and don't think there is "anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale."

Fred

If the 21st century becomes a [top animal rights leader Peter] Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2haQOxCWDksJ:www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm%3Fid%3D9987+Peter+Singer+same-sex+marriage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:

"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."

Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!

What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!

Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!" May this blessing fulfill the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!

R.O.Schmidt

*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent - thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.

From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we see a writer in a socialist publication explicitly declaring that non-human animals have "rights." Given the absolute control of the press by the NSDAP, this constitutes an official proclamation.

In fairness, it should be noted that the proclaimed ban on vivisection was less than absolute in the entire Reich. Some German scientists continued to use animals rather than humans for research despite the threatened penalty.
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:UV4Z7acH-mcJ:constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id11.html+animal+rights+leader+hitler&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Singer Supports Sex with Corpses, Animals and Same-Sex Marriage

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2haQOxCWDksJ:www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm%3Fid%3D9987+Peter+Singer+same-sex+marriage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Don't expect [top animal rights leader]Peter Singer to be quoted heavily on the issue that roiled the Nov. 2 election, same-sex marriage. That for him is intellectual child's play, already logically decided, and it's time to move on to polyamory. While politicians debate the definition of marriage between two people, Mr. Singer argues that any kind of "fully consensual" sexual behavior involving two people or 200 is ethically fine.

For example, when I asked him last month about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said, "There's no moral problem with that." Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."

If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."

When we had lunch a month after our initial interview and I read back his answers to him, he said he would be "concerned about a society where the role of some women was to breed children for that purpose," but he stood by his statements. He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be "raised as soon as possible after birth."

These proposals are biblically and historically monstrous, but Mr. Singer is a soft-spoken Princeton professor. Whittaker Chambers a half-century ago wrote, "Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness," but part of Mr. Singer's effectiveness in teaching "Practical Ethics" to Princeton undergraduates is that he does not come across personally as beastly.

C.S. Lewis 61 years ago wrote That Hideous Strength, a novel with villainous materialists employed by N.I.C.E. (the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments): They were to be officed in a building that "would make quite a noticeable addition to the skyline of New York." But Mr. Singer sits in an unostentatious office at Princeton's Center for Human Values, which is housed in a small and homey grayish-green building with a front yard that slopes down the street. The Center even has a pastoral-sounding address: 5 Ivy Lane.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Poll: Voters Don't Know Barack Obama Pro-Abortion, John McCain Pro-Life

"Among pro-life voters who know where the two candidates stand, McCain trounces Obama by a whopping 70-24 percentage point margin. Surprisingly, Obama has a one percent lead (43-42 percent) among pro-life voters who are uninformed about their abortion positions."

Poll: Voters Don't Know Barack Obama Pro-Abortion, John McCain Pro-Life

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll finds half of voters don't know that presidential candidate John McCain is pro-life on abortion or that Barack Obama is pro-abortion.

The survey shows that, when pro-life voters know that information, they support McCain by a three-to-one margin. A new poll from the Pew Research Center finds voters are more interested in the 2008 election than they were the 2004 election, but they are less informed on where the candidates stand.

Pew finds that just 52 percent of voters rightly identify Obama as pro-abortion ("pro-choice" in the poll's terminology") and only 45 percent know John McCain is pro-life on abortion.

A stunning 38 percent of voters don't know where either Obama or McCain stand on the issue of abortion.

Some ten percent wrongly identify Obama as pro-life and 17 percent think McCain supports abortion. This information gap is important and a subsequent question shows whichever side of the abortion debate can frame the candidates first will likely help one of them win the election.

Among pro-life voters who know where the two candidates stand, McCain trounces Obama by a whopping 70-24 percentage point margin. Surprisingly, Obama has a one percent lead (43-42 percent) among pro-life voters who are uninformed about their abortion positions.

On the other side, pro-abortion groups will be working overtime to educate their supporters as well. That's because Obama leads 71-24 percent among pro-abortion voters who know where the two candidates stand and he has a much smaller 48-40 percent lead among pro-abortion voters who don't.

-

World's Catholics: Latin American 43%,Europe 25%,Africa 13%,Asia 11%

Global South as growing force in Catholic Church

By Sophie Arie | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

ROME –
Borgo Pio, a quiet street a few blocks from St. Peter's Square, is the Vatican's unofficial catwalk. Onlookers watch clusters of nuns from all over the world parade by in pink, blue, and brown habits.
But eavesdroppers won't hear them chattering in Italian or Latin, the Holy See's official languages. These nuns speak in their native tongues of Africa, Asia, and South America, where the fast-growing population of Roman Catholics has turned the global South into the church's new center of power.

As part of a broader trend of surging Christianity in the developing world, the rising tide - and rising clout - of Southern Catholics has already brought profound change to their faith. Morally and theologically conservative, respectful of authority, poor but full of zeal, they are everything that European Catholics are not.

Now that John Paul II has died, some Catholics are asking: Shouldn't the next pope represent this class of Catholics, which makes up two thirds of the Vatican's 1.1 billion strong flock?

"The South is increasingly the center of energy of Christianity," says Vatican expert John Allen. "There is a strong current that would regard a pope from the developing world as the most suitable leader now."

Among the names of cardinals listed as likely successors, three or four are from the developing world. A pope from the South, analysts say, would probably uphold the church's teachings opposing abortion, contraception, married clerics, and same-sex unions.

"Christians are facing a shrinking population in the liberal West and a growing majority of the traditional rest," says Philip Jenkins, author of "The Next Christendom: The coming of global Christianity."

Shifting center of gravity

Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, are booming in the global South. The rise is so great, in fact, that Christendom's so-called center of gravity - the point on the globe where roughly the same number of believers live to the north, south, east, and west - is shifting ever further from Rome, not to mention Jerusalem, where Christianity started.

Today, according to a trajectory mapped by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, based in South Hamilton, Mass., the demographic heart of the Christian world has shifted to Timbuktu, in the mostly Muslim African nation of Mali.

It won't be there for long. As the numbers of African Christians multiplies, and as Europe's churches continue to empty, by 2100, the center of gravity will have pushed deeper south, to Sokoto, Nigeria. By then, experts estimate, there will be three times more Christians in the global South than in the North.

"It's a shock to see how fast this center of gravity is moving," says Todd Johnson, director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. "The growth of Christianity in Africa today is faster than it has been at any time in Christian history."

Since 1900, the number of Christians in Africa has jumped to 390 million from 8.7 million, an increase of more than 4,400 percent. By 2025, Africa's pews are expected to seat almost 600 million believers.

By contrast, in Europe, the only part of the world where Christianity is on the decline, the number of Christians (including Russians) is set to drop by 18 million by 2025. There are officially 531 million Christians in Europe, making them still the largest single group in the world.

But only 10 percent of them go to church on a regular basis.



SOURCE: GLOBAL CATHOLICISM: PORTRAIT OF A WORLD CHURCH; STAFF


There is "increasing tension" between the liberal North and the "surging Southern religious revolution," Jenkins says.

Catholicism has followed roughly the same population shift as Christianity as a whole during the past century, according to Johnson.

Despite losing believers to a new wave of evangelical churches taking Latin America by storm, Catholicism has continued to grow there in large part simply because of high birth rates.

In Asia and Africa, meanwhile, the rapid rise of Catholicism is fueled as much by birth rates as it is by the discovery of the faith.

In 1900, 68 percent of the world's Catholics were in Europe; today just 25 percent are, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity.

Latin American Catholics, meanwhile, now make up 43 percent of the world's total, while Catholic Asians now make up 11 percent. And Africa, which had 1 percent of Catholics worldwide in 1900, is now home to 13 percent.

For many, Christianity has already reached a historic turning point. Archbishop John Onaiyekan, of Abuja, Nigeria, suggested recently that "priests from places like Nigeria can reevangelize Europe." Hundreds of years after Europeans began evangelizing the world, African missionaries are now traveling to the Old Continent to revive the faith.


Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria, a charismatic Vatican diplomat, is a much touted "papabile," one who could be pope. But few believe the Catholic Church is ready for a black pope.

Cardinals Claudio Hummes of Brazil, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina are perhaps more-probable Southern contenders. A few outspoken Southern cardinals have indicated in the past that a pope from the developing world is what the Catholic Church badly needs.

"The world is looking forward to an Asian or Latin American pope," Cardinal Telsphore Placidus Troppo, one of India's three cardinal electors, said in December 2004.

How much clout?

But the arithmetic of the conclave of cardinals reveals the limits of the developing world's clout. For instance, even though 43 percent of the world's Catholics live in Latin America, there are just 21 Latin American cardinals among the 117 eligible to elect the next pope. Even if all Southern cardinals united behind one candidate, their 45 votes would fall short of the needed two-thirds majority.

Some experts expect the papacy to return to an Italian - a tradition that held for nearly five centuries before John Paul II.

"The world changes, but the church doesn't," said a Vatican source, asking not to be named.
[http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0405/p01s03-wogi.html]

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Top Animal Rights Leaders Support Ape-Human Sex

Animal rights leader Peter Singer, the founder of the Great Ape Project, and the leading animal right organization PETA who were behind the Spanish parliaments extending of rights to apes support sex between animals and humans.

Fred


Zoophilia

In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers's Dearest Pet: On Bestiality,[29] Singer stated that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. Singer explains Dekker's belief that zoophilia should remain illegal if it involves what he sees as "cruelty", but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror. However, Singer does not claim to endorse the views of either Dekker or Soyka, merely to be explaining them. Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[30] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes".[29] Some religious individuals and animal rights groups have condemned this view,[citation needed] while the animal rights organization PETA has expressed cautious support.[citation needed]

[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:aq17fVGZS9AJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer+Peter+Singer+human+animal+sex&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Gay Rights then Same-Sex Marriage then Ape Rights then Ape-Human Marriage

Gay Rights then Same-Sex Marriage then Ape Rights then Ape-Human Marriage
First came gay rights then same-sex marriage then ape rights then comes ape-human marriage.

Fred

Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes
Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:27pm EDT Mag 2007 By Martin Roberts

MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.

Parliament's environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.

"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project.

Spain may be better known abroad for bull-fighting than animal rights but the new measures are the latest move turning once-conservative Spain into a liberal trailblazer.

Spain did not legalize divorce until the 1980s, but Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government has legalized gay marriage, reduced the influence of the Catholic Church in education and set up an Equality Ministry.

The new resolutions have cross-party or majority support and are expected to become law and the government is now committed to update the statute book within a year to outlaw harmful experiments on apes in Spain.

"We have no knowledge of great apes being used in experiments in Spain, but there is currently no law preventing that from happening," Pozas said.

Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain's penal code.

Keeping an estimated 315 apes in Spanish zoos will not be illegal, but supporters of the bill say conditions will need to improve drastically in 70 percent of establishments to comply with the new law.

Philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri founded the Great Ape Project in 1993, arguing that "non-human hominids" like chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured.

(Reporting by Martin Roberts; Editing by Richard Williams)

[http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625?sp=true]

Are Animal Rights Adovates the New Aryans?

Compare a comment I recieved on my blog from an animal rights adovate and the Nazi ideology.

Fred

-At 7:08 AM, Anonymous said...
What extremes you animal-hater extremist will go to try to prove that animal advocates are evil - likened to the Nazis. laughable, if not so dangerous to the millions of animals who are tortured, maimed, subjected to invasive unnecessary procedures in research labs, imprisoned and helpless condemned to misery and suffering until murdered by you self-annointed supreme beings - the human. BEWARE OF MAN!

-The Nazi ideology justified similar arguments by inequality. No difference between man and animal was seen, but instead a hierarchical continuum. At the top of the Nazi view of nature were the racially pure Aryans. Then came the animals, of whom the highest and most respected were the strong beasts that subdued all the others under their might. Then came the other animals and finally, subhumans.

[http://www.kaltio.fi/index.php?494]

Animal Rights in the Third Reich

Kaltio 2/03

Finnish text: Aslak Aikio
English translation: Anniina Vuori


Nazi Germany, the archetypal image of evil, pioneered the protection of animal rights. The main principles of nazis' protection of animals have been generally accepted today and integrated into the western legislation. Even their strictest ideas prohibiting animal abuse are still alive.

The pioneering role of the Third Reich had in developing modern understanding of the protection of animals is a tough spot for today's animal rights movement. For the brutal social experiment of the Third Reich was also an experiment of a society with a goal of executing a radical version of animal rights. Due to the awkwardness of the issue, many animal rights activists keep quiet about it. For instance, the whole issue is left unmentioned in the classic Animal Liberation (1975) by Peter Singer. In the meticulous history section, he leaves the period 1880-1945 out completely. Because the writer is obviously well acquainted with the topic, it is hardly an accident. He refers to the nazis' human tests comparing them to the modern vivisection and brings up the Buddhist principles of protecting animals as a contrasting idea. This is troublesome reading to someone who is familiar with the subject, because also nazis appealed to Buddhism as the opposite of the animal hostility in Christianity - which they considered one branch of Judaism.

Some people resort to denial as a solution for the issue. It is typical to deny Hitler's vegetarianism with the suspicion that he once ate a dove. It is easy to find outright lies in different militant animal rights and vegetarism homepages where the whole matter is denied. However, this peculiar subplot in the history of animal protection will not simply disappear. That is why the Third Reich similarities with and particularly differences from modern animal rights thinking should be recognized, both by animal rights activists and their opponents.



The strictest animal rights laws in the world

On 28th of August, 1933, millions of Germans had gathered in front of the radio. People had gotten familiar with the ways of the new leaders during the past six months the Nazis had been in power, and they had gotten used to Nazis meaning what they said. People had learned to follow important speeches. It was known that Hermann Göring, the cabinet minister of Prussian affairs in the Third Reich, was to hold an important speech regarding policy. The minister discussed only one issue: the prohibition of vivisection he had ordered two weeks earlier. Vivisection referred to animal testing, specifically torturous operations made without anesthesia or pain relief, cutting animals up alive. He justified his order by referring to the unique brotherhood the German race historically had with animals, and pleaded to how animals and Aryans had shared their homes, fields and battles in co-operation and as brothers-in-arms for many millennia. In the end, Göring made clear what awaited people who broke the rule. Those who thought they could still treat animals as lifeless objects were to be sent to concentration camps immediately.

Göring's tough policies were no exception. The view was not political rhetoric but the tough core of Nazism, the idea of an alliance between the Aryan race and nature. Thus, the Nazis made animal protection laws which were the strictest in history right after they had seized power. Natural conservation areas were established all around the country to protect endangered species. Already in the early plans, whole areas like Lithuania and great parts of Ukraine were outlined for afforestation into their natural state as soon as their population was destroyed. The Third Reich was the first to place the wolf under protection, which deed in its own time was quite incredible. Minute regulations were drawn up even for the treatment of fish and lobsters. The regulations were also guarded; of all the German professions, the greatest percentage of veterinarians belonged to the Nazi party.


The German animal protection law (Tierschutzgesetz), effective since the end of 1933, was the first in the world that defined rights for animals as they were (um ihrer selbst wille), regardless of the needs or feelings of humans. The law was also the first one to abolish the distinction between domestic and wild animals. It defined as legal subjects "all living creatures that in general language and biologically regarded as animals. In a criminal sense, there is no distinction between domestic and wild animals, higher or lower valued animals, or useful or harmful animals to humans." The phrasing is somewhat different nowadays, but all western animal rights laws are based on these principles.

Several Nazi leaders, like Hitler and Himmler, were vegetarians and nature preservers for ideological reasons. However, Hitler apparently lapsed every now and then into eating the Austrian mountain delicatessen of his childhood, sausage, game animals, and air-dried ham. Nevertheless, part of his plans was to ban meat eating in the whole Europe governed by Aryans.

Himmler hated hunting. He noted to his Finnish-Estonian doctor: "How can you, Herr Kersten, enjoy shooting from a shelter at helpless creatures, who wander in the forest innocent, unable to protect themselves, and unsuspecting? It is real murder. The nature is tremendously beautiful and every animal has the right to live." Apparently, he also used the concept "animal rights" for the first time in its modern sense in an SS family publication in 1934. In his writing, he admired Germans who did not kill rats but sued them as their equals. In the court, the rats had a defendant and they were given a chance to change their ways and stop romping in the grain store. This man, who expressed deep and kind affection towards nature and animal, was on the other hand a cold-blooded fanatic, who commanded SS troops, Gestapo, and the concentrations camps in Germany with well-known efficiency.


The Swedish historian Peter Englund has observed the inconsistent personalities Nazi leaders had. Several of them hated humans, and it was hard for them to act naturally in the company of other people. They substituted this with a close relationship to animals. The pronounced love for their pets of for instance Hitler and Rudolf Hess, in addition to deep conviction to nature preservation, were inner arguments for "I am a good person, without a doubt". Englund's argument that turns the issue into psychology is somewhat weak, but it can still make a lot of sense.



No difference between animals and people

The image Nazis had about the relationship of man and nature was mystical and vulgarly Darwinist. Modern animal rights movements base their ideas on the equality of humans and animals. The Nazi ideology justified similar arguments by inequality. No difference between man and animal was seen, but instead a hierarchical continuum. At the top of the Nazi view of nature were the racially pure Aryans. Then came the animals, of whom the highest and most respected were the strong beasts that subdued all the others under their might. Then came the other animals and finally, subhumans. The ones on top of the hierarchy had the moral duty to defend their weaker brothers. Humanity as a concept was denied completely.

Nazis solved the ethical problems of animal rights by drawing a line between animals and subhumans. Thus, strict laws on animal protection and guidelines for animal testing did not apply to subhumans. If someone, for instance, had transported slaughter animals in the same way Jews were transported to extermination camps, that person would have been shot. However, strict animal testing guidelines had to be moderated in practice because most doctors were not willing to replace test animals with humans. Convinced Nazis, like Mengele, were an exception. As has been claimed many times, the most brutal part is that Nazis' human tests were partly successful. For example, the suitable treatment for hypothermia is still based on them.


There is a long ideological tradition behind the Nazi ideas of animal rights. In the spirit of nationalism, German thinking had already imagined a connection with the nature and animals during the rise of Romanticism in the 19th century. One of the central opinion leaders was composer Richard Wagner who justified both vegetarianism and opposing animal tests with anti-Semitism. In his opinion, meat eating and animal oppression originated from the Jewish and, they had destroyed the pure German race. In his opinion, animal testing was connected with the Jewish kosher-slaughtering.

Thoughts and feeling of responsibility of the Nazis to act directly against vivisection laboratories and their personnel originated directly from Wagner. Even Jewish persecution was partly justified as animal protection: the Jews oppressed animals, therefore attacking them was defending the weak and, as such, a moral duty. This makes it difficult to consider the more progressive ideas of Nazism; they were connected directly with the darkest sides of their ideology.



The burden of history

Most of the Nazis' animal protection rules were dissolved after the fall of the Third Reich. The wolf was hunted extinct, and nature preservation areas were cultivated. In Germany, history burdened everything connected with nature preservation and vegetarianism until the beginning of the 70s. Some older Germans still connect vegetarianism first with Hitler. Third Reich's views of animal protection come up every now and then within the right-wing parties. In England, some neo-Nazis who have read more about the subject have tried to join in the Animal Rights movement. There has been discussion of the Green Nazi phenomenon in the United States, and Göring's famous speech can easily be found on the Internet's neo-Nazi websites.

In Finland, the ideological tradition of the Nazis lives on in Pentti Linkola's thoughts. Linkola has been classified as a follower of the ideology in international debates. Nothing is known of the matter in Finland, so the issue has not received attention. Awareness of the ideological tradition can, however, be found even in Linkola's own texts. This can be seen perhaps the clearest in his writing for the magazine Hiidenkivi (1/2001) and the debate that followed it. Linkola defines "ideologies like Nazism, which highlight the quality and moral backbone of humans" as ethically superior and regrets the unfortunate end of WWII. Perhaps the most important distinction is that when Nazis classify people's relationship with nature according to race, Linkola does the same according to their social standing and political ideologies. He sees working class and left-wing parties as dangerous to the nature and the society, and that they also limit rights.

However, Linkola's misanthropic deep ecology appears to be marginal within the thought of Finnish animal activists. It appears the majority lean on a Singerian view of equality and spreading rights outside the sphere of humans. Even though these most common modern arguments for animal and nature preservation differ from the Nazi views, the conclusions remain so similar that the whole Nazi Germany question is awkward to animal activists today. The Nazis' idea of nature is undoubtedly painful for those who regard vegetarianism and acknowledging animal rights as a sign of their own moral superiority. This thought is precisely the same the Nazis had. However, most people will probably understand that the evilness of the Nazi ideology does not mean that all their thoughts that coincide with those of the Nazis' are evil as such. And not all of the ideas they had were, in the first instance, bad despite awkward reasoning, but they should be considered as a part of larger European philosophical history and its development.

[http://www.kaltio.fi/index.php?494]

Animal rights group protests over Pope's fur

ROME (AFP) — One of Italy's leading animal rights groups said Monday it was launching an Internet petition to demand Pope Benedict XVI stop wearing fur during religious ceremonies at the Vatican.

Lorenzo Croce, chairman of the Italian Association for the Defence of Animals and the Environment (AIDAA), denied being provocative or wanting to make an anti-religious statement.

"We just want to ask him in a message of love and peace to give a strong signal towards the protection of animals and the environment through a small but very significant personal sacrifice," Croce told the Italian news agency ANSA.

Since his election Pope Benedict has taken to wearing a number of traditional religious garments, including a small red velvet cape with a white ermine border, which he wears in winter along with a hat the same colour.

The association has created a website to accept signatures and Croce wants to present the petition to the pope in September.
[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hb_YV_OC0MvHEBMC-Q36zoG8sFsg]

Friday, July 18, 2008

San Francisco Condemns Catholicism

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69693

Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church

Instructs members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition'

July 15, 2008

A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."

It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."

As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."

The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."

The anti-Catholic diatribe had been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it.
She wrote in her decision, "The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement" for instructing Catholic politicians on how to vote. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation."
She ruled that the city's proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.

Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials – even in their official capacity as representatives of the government – can say what they want.

"It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders," she wrote.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.

"Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a statement. "The judge in her written decision held that the Church 'provoked the debate' by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded 'responsibly' to all of the 'terrible' things the Church was saying."

Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said.
"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. … Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases," Muise said.

Thomas More attorneys argued in the District Court case that the "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message" that Catholics are "outsiders, not full members of the political community."

The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.

Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

Openly homosexual California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."

The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion's views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.

Currently, as WND has reported, Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as "hate speech" for it's condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

"AIDS... has become a Multibillion-Dollar Industry"

World's Most Successful AIDS Prevention Programme in Uganda "Sabotaged" by Western "Experts"

Western advisors used their control of international funding to force a change in direction to condoms and casual sex

By Hilary White

KAMPALA, Uganda, July 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - While the US Senate considers a proposal to allocate US$50 million more for AIDS prevention programmes, one Ugandan expert says it will be wasted money if the attitudes of the Western AIDS prevention community towards AIDS transmission do not change. In a column appearing in the Washington Post on June 30, one of Uganda's leading AIDS prevention experts called on the Western "experts" to "Let my people go."

"We understand that casual sex is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us. Listen to African wisdom, and we will show you how to prevent AIDS."

Sam L. Ruteikara wrote in the Washington Post that efforts to maintain the world's most successful AIDS prevention programme was "sabotaged" by precisely those Western "experts" who insisted that only condoms would work.

Ruteikara is the co-chair of Uganda's National AIDS-Prevention Committee. He wrote in a column in the Washington Post on June 30, "AIDS epidemics in Africa are driven by people having sex regularly with more than one person." The Western experts, dedicated to the exclusive promotion of condoms, were incensed when Ugandan AIDS rates plummeted with this "ABC" method that left condoms as a "last resort".

The success of the Ugandan programme, Ruteikara said, did not sit well with those international experts and advisors, sent to Uganda to oversee the spending of international relief funds, who are devoted to the condom as the first and last answer to the AIDS epidemic.

Despite the official line that Western "advisors" were to work within local programmes, these experts, Ruteikara asserted, actively stonewalled the Ugandan committee's recommendations. The Western advisors objected that the programme was an attempt "to limit people's sexual freedom" and they used their control of the international funding to force a change in direction.

"Repeatedly, our 25-member prevention committee put faithfulness and abstinence into the National Strategic Plan that guides how PEPFAR [President's Emergency Plan for HIV-AIDS Relief] money for our country will be spent. Repeatedly, foreign advisers erased our recommendations. When the document draft was published, fidelity and abstinence were missing."

More insidiously, Ruteikara says that a "suspicious" statistic appeared in reports that claimed a significant increase in rates of AIDS among married couples. The claim was that 42 per cent of married couples were infected, a rate twice that of prostitutes. Repeated requests for the origin of this statistic were ignored. Domestic surveys done by Ugandan health officials found that only 6.3 per cent of married couples are infected, lower even than rates among widowed and divorced Ugandans.

Since the Ugandans were forced to change their programmes, surveys have shown that the percentage of sexually active men with multiple partners has more than doubled, undoing earlier declines, and the AIDS rate has begun to climb again.

The Ugandan success story is one of the most impressive in the fight against AIDS. Between 1989 and 1995, the number of men having three or more sexual partners in a year dropped from 15 to three per cent and HIV rates plunged from 21 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2002. At the same time, Western nations brought more than 2 billion condoms on Africa and the epidemic continued in nations that went along with the condoms-only approach.

The motive for opposing the Ugandan initiative, Ruteikara said, was financial as well as ideological. "In the fight against AIDS, profiteering has trumped prevention," he said. "AIDS is no longer simply a disease; it has become a multibillion-dollar industry."

Ruteikara's assertions are supported by Dr. James Chin, a former top AIDS epidemiologist at the World Health Organization, who said, "Easily preventable diseases are still killing millions of children each year, while billions of dollars are being squandered annually by AIDS programs."

Robert England, head of the charity Health Systems Workshop said in the British Medical Journal, "Although HIV causes 3.7 per cent of [worldwide] mortality, it receives 25 per cent of international health care aid."

Ruteikara concluded, "Telling men and women to keep sex sacred -- to save sex for marriage and then remain faithful -- is telling them to love one another deeply with their whole hearts. Most HIV infections in Africa are spread by sex outside of marriage: casual sex and infidelity. The solution is faithful love."

"We, the poor of Africa, remain silenced in the global dialogue. Our wisdom about our own culture is ignored."

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
UN Anger Over Uganda's Successful Abstinence Program Fuelled by Loss of Funds Says Researcher
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/oct/05101404.html

Ugandan Anti-AIDS Activist Demands UN Fire Lewis For Pushing Condoms
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/sep/05090701.html

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Is Obama another Teenager like W. Bush, B. Clinton and J. Carter?

It’s strange how worst president in history candidate Jimmy Carter who said W. Bush was the worst president in history appears to be an identical twin of Bush.

Jimmy’s call for democracy in Iran lead to high oil prices, a dead US economy and Islamic extremists control of Iran.

W. Bush’s call for democracy in Iraq lead to high oil prices, a dead US economy and Islamic extremists control of Iraq by Iran.

Again it’s strange how worst president in history candidates Billy Clinton and W. Bush look alike.

Teenage W. said he won’t send troops on “vague aimless and endless deployments” like teenage Billy Clinton’s call for democracy in Bosnia and Kosovo.

But being a teen W. forgot what he said and send troops on “vague aimless and endless deployments” in Iraq.

It’s a tough call on which of the three teens is the worst president in history.

W. and Jimmy’s presidencies lead to malaise economies due to liberal economic policies and the spread of Islamic extremist control by Iran.

While Billy’s economy was fine thanks to conservative policies due to Republican control of the Senate and House, he had problems sexually abusing women, possibly even raping them, as while as obstructing justice and lying under oath.

Now reminiscent of W., Jimmy and Billy we have a new young unknown named Obama who says we shouldn’t have sent troops on a vague aimless and endless deployment in Iraq.

But might this young candidate be like W. and forget what he said and send troops on a vague aimless and endless deployments somewhere else like baby Bush and follow Democrat Billy Clinton to show how tough he is?

Or might he be as weak as Jimmy and send signals to Islamic extremists that the US is a weakling nation that can be pushed around by bullies?

Young Obama who supports same-sex marriage in California is also like teen Jimmy and Billy in supporting the killing of unborn babies as while as the homosexual take over of the US culture.

Maybe we need an adult in the White House like Ronald Reagan and George Bush the Elder who both talked tough, but kept us out of endless wars.

These two pro-life adults also were against the homosexual take over of the US culture.

I don’t care much for McCain, but at least he is pro-life, against same-sex marriage and appears to be an adult.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

PRO-ABORTION YOUTUBE CENSORS PRI

Youtube Censors PRI Investigative Video

FRONT ROYAL, Va., July 2 /Christian Newswire/ -- YouTube.com, in what the Population Research Institute (PRI) is calling a case of blatant censorship, has removed a video from its website for the sole reason that it criticizes a pro- abortion journalist.

The video, edited and posted by the Catholic News Agency, shows PRI affiliate Carlos Polo in conversation with pro-abortion activist Eve Reinhardt. Reinhardt had obtained an interview with Polo by assuring him that she was impartial and balanced. Polo, however, discovered that she was affiliated very closely with a hard-left, pro-abortion documentary project, entitled The Decency Gap. Polo brought his own cameraman to the interview and confronted Reinhardt, accusing her of deliberately misleading him.

Shortly after this video was posted, the website for The Decency Gap vanished, and the video was taken down by YouTube. YouTube cited vague "terms of use violations" as their reason for censoring the video.

"As the editor of a news agency that strives to provide people around the world the truth about the Catholic Church and issues of concern to Catholics, I find it frustrating that The Decency Gap project is able to convince YouTube to remove a factual video without any explanation," David Uebbing, executive editor of the Catholic News Agency told PRI.

"None of the information provided in the video has been contradicted by The Decency Gap," he continued. "Additionally, the project's links to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Marie Stopes International, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the Peruvian pro-abortion association PROMSEX have not been disproven."

According to Uebbing, censorship of this kind is nothing new on YouTube. He points to the example of a video posted by American Life League, which was taken down for supposedly "inappropriate content." This video criticized clips from two online Planned Parenthood ads. But while YouTube removed ALL's video, it left the original Planned Parenthood ads online.

Catholic News Agency has since reposted the video, labeling it "The Decency Gap / Eve Reinhardt Censored Version," as well as posting a version on Google Video as well. The now-defunct link to the original video can be found here.

"Stop censoring people with whom you disagree," PRI President Steve Mosher told YouTube. "This is America, not the People's Republic of China."

The Population Research Institute (PRI) was founded in 1989 by Fr. Paul Marx, OSB, PhD and is dedicated to: (1) ending human rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning", (2) opposing outdated social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of overpopulation, (3) informing the public about the social and economic benefits of moderate population growth, and (4) promoting pro- natal and pro-family attitudes and policies worldwide. Steven Mosher is the author of numerous books, including A Mother's Ordeal.


Christian Newswire

Obama Calls Traditional Christianity “Divisive and Discriminatory”

If Obama is elected will it become a hate crime to be a orthodox Christian or Jew?

Fred

Obama: "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

July 1, 2008

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


Did Obama Just Lose The Election?

He may have if the Republican Party rises to the challenge. Here’s the news that the liberal media won’t tell you: Barack Obama has embraced the radical agenda of the militant homosexual rights movement. As I reported to you recently, Senator McCain publicly endorsed the effort in California to pass a marriage protection amendment this November in response to the outrageous decision by the state Supreme Court finding a new right for men to “marry” other men.

After the California Supreme Court issued its opinion, which arrogantly ignored the 61% of California voters who approved a Defense of Marriage law in 2000, the Obama campaign issued a press release that read, “[Senator Obama] respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.”

Apparently he didn’t mean it. We learned this morning that Senator Obama is now siding with the liberal judicial activists and the homosexual movement instead of the vast majority of Californians. In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, Obama wrote the following:


“…I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. …And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states. …Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks.”

Did you catch that? According to Senator Obama, if you try to make sure that marriage remains the union of one man and one woman in your home state, YOU are being “divisive and discriminatory.”

The timing of Senator Obama’s letter couldn’t be better. Today, the Washington, D.C., media outfit Politico has posted a column I wrote on the potential impact of this very issue. In my column I note the following facts:

A 2007 Quinnipiac poll found that homosexuality remains a powerful issue in key states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. In all three, a much higher percentage of voters (34 percent to 10 percent in Ohio, 28 percent to 10 percent in Florida and 28 percent to 11 percent in Pennsylvania) said they would be “less likely” to vote for a candidate who received an endorsement from a gay rights group. Earlier this month, the nation’s largest homosexual rights lobbying group, the Human Rights Campaign, endorsed Barack Obama citing his “unwavering commitment” to its issues.


In response to the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas and the state court decision authorizing homosexual “marriages” in Massachusetts, 11 state marriage amendments passed at the ballot box the following year with an average approval vote of 70 percent. To date, the voters of 27 states have passed marriage protection amendments.

Barack Obama may be willing to write off Mississippi, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Texas – states where traditional marriage won the backing of 75% or more of the electorate. But what about Virginia, where 57% of the voters backed a marriage amendment in 2006? What about Michigan, where 59% of voters supported a marriage amendment in 2004?

Now, I realize some people want Senator McCain to speak up more and go farther than he has on pro-family issues. I have been among those encouraging him to do so. Yes, because I want him to win, but more importantly because the meaning of marriage and family matters immensely to the health and well-being of our society. The American people are not bigots, and they understand that children deserve a mother and a father. This is a perfect example of good politics being good policy!

That being said, conservatives who do care about pro-family, pro-life values need to understand and appreciate the very stark difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. John McCain is with us on this issue. We may disagree on strategy regarding the need for a federal marriage amendment, but we do not disagree on the fundamental meaning of marriage.

In contrast, Obama wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed the Senate in 1996 with a vote of 85-to-14! His position on traditional marriage (and abortion too!) is the most radical and extreme of any candidate for president of the United States. And I have no doubt that the judges he would nominate to the Supreme Court would share his radical views.

When it comes to moral issues, it is clear that Senator Obama is entirely committed to the radical leftwing ideology at the expense of the common sense traditional values that have served our nation so well for so long. Openly embracing homosexual “marriage” is certainly “change,” but it’s clearly not the kind of change that most Americans want.